DISQUS

michaelbayly · 2 months ago

Excellent compilation of writings on this issue, William. What times we're living through!

WDL · 2 months ago

Michael, I value the praise. You really are a late-night blog reader, aren't you?

DoubtingThomas · 2 months ago

Don't you think that I might be a bit unfair to accuse the hierarchy of misogyny simply because of their positions on abortion "rights" and the ordination of women.

They have valid theological reasons for both positions.

WDL · 2 months ago

I don't think I've ever used the phrase "abortion rights" on this blog. That's one reason I pointed out that going to the it's-all-about-abortion rhetoric when we're talking about "reproductive rights" misses the point and skews the discussion in the wrong direction.

To my mind, there are better ways to talk about the ethical complexities of abortion than by using the language of rights.

I'm not so sure I'd agree that the magisterial position is based on sound theological reasons in either case. To take the case of women's ordination: just as with the issue of artificial contraception, before making an official statement on women's ordination, Rome struck a team of theological advisors.

When they did that with contraception, the team encouraged Rome to end the ban on artificial contraception, and gave compelling theological reasons to do so. Rome ignored the advice and the theological reasons, and we're stuck now with a teaching few people follow or respect, because it's based on bad theology.

And precisely the same thing happened with the committee on women's ordination and the advice and theological reasons it gave to Rome for ending the ban on ordination of women . . . .

DoubtingThomas · 2 months ago

Here's my view.

Jesus could have ordained women if he wanted to. He had plenty of female followers including Magdalene, Mary of Cleopas, Joanna and even His own Mother. They were the ones who were there at the Cross and at the Tomb on Sunday morning. It doesn't matter that his culture discounted women. Jesus ate with tax collectors, performed miracles on the sabbath and spoke against the established religious authority. He did plenty of stuff that was counter cultural. If He had wanted women priests, He would have made some of his female disciples Apostles.

DoubtingThomas · 2 months ago

I know that you, Bill, have never used the term "abortion rights." But many others have and continue to do so.

WDL · 2 months ago

Two observations, Thomas: first, the "Jesus could have" argument strikes me as not very compelling. It's a version of the argument from silence, which is never a strong argument.

Second, it's clear to me that Jesus didn't ordain anyone. Rituals and structures like ordination and the priesthood are later developments. Jesus was a faithful Jew preaching a message consistent with Judaism's core teachings: the arrival of the reign of God. It's very clear to me that he never thought of himself as founding a new religion, and that he never used the word "church," which is a retrojection of early Christianity into the gospel stories of Jesus's life and ministry.

I don't mean in saying this to say that the church may not be a valid outcome of Jesus's proclamation of the reign of God. What I do mean to say is that arguments about whom Jesus could have ordained or did ordain are not theologically strong arguments, for the reasons I've just given.

DoubtingThomas · 1 month ago

I know I read on one of the threads a discussion of whether or not the Anglicans would offer to take some Catholics who didn't agree with established Church teaching.

Here it is: http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2009/10/and-d...