Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

More on Vatican Bad Manners

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Paul Halsall

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 9:52:39 AM3/14/94
to
ANGLICAN CHURCH ORDAINS 32 WOMEN

BITTER DEBATE CONTINUES AS SOME CLERGY RESIGN; SHARP REACTION COMES FROM
VATICAN

By JOHN DARNTON
New York Times

LONDON -- Thirty-two women knelt Saturday evening in Bristol Cathedral for
the laying on of hands by the bishop, and became the first women ordained as
priests in the Church of England's 460 years.

The ordination of women, which seemed inevitable since it was found to be
theologically unobjectionable by the General Synod of the Anglican Church in
1975, has prompted a bitter debate for almost 20 years.

The two decades are sometimes said to be the most divisive period in the
church since Henry VIII established it, and severed the nation's ties to the
Church of Rome over Pope Clement VII's refusal to annul his marriage to
Katharine of Aragon so he could wed Anne Boleyn. And there are signs the
split has not ended.

Some 700 clergy members, some of them retired, have indicated an intention to
convert to Roman Catholicism. So far, only 35 priests have resigned, although
an additional 115 have indicated they will do so by January. There are 10,200
priests in the church altogether.

ROBES AND QUESTIONS

The 32 female deacons gathered in the historic cathedral in white robes
Saturday and arranged themselves in a rectangle around the bishop, the Rt.
Rev. Barry Rogerson. They answered the questions to test their faith and then
the congregation followed the bishop in silent prayer for them.

The archbishops of Canterbury and York, George Carey and John Habgood, both
of whom favor ordaining women, said Saturday's service was ''a new
beginning'' that ''marks the culmination of almost 20 years of formal debate
and many more years of prayer and reflection.''

The decision to allow ordination of women was not ''undertaken lightly or
hastily,'' they said in a joint statement, and although most believed the
ordinations to be God's will, ''others, of course, believe the move to be
mistaken.'' They urged church members to show ''generosity, tolerance,
courtesy and loving patience with each other.''

The Vatican reacted sharply to Saturday's ordinations, even though they came
as no surprise, reasserting its opposition to priesthood for women and saying
the Church of England's decision was a setback for eventual reunion.

In a statement issued only hours before the ceremony in Bristol, the chief
Vatican spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, said Pope John Paul II ''had
clearly and publicly affirmed that the ordination of women also constitutes a
profound obstacle to every hope of reunion between the Catholic Church and
the Anglican Communion.''

''This reunion is and remains a great hope, which this new obstacle makes
more difficult,'' Navarro-Valls said, referring to talks between the Vatican
and the Church of England on possible reunion that began shortly after the
Second Vatican Council.

CELEBRATION FOR SOME

But these considerations did not seem to mar the occasion for the 32 women
who became priests, many of whom had struggled for a decade or more for the
right to participate in certain rites of the church, and, beginning today,
will be allowed to celebrate the Eucharist.

Jane Hayward, looking ahead to Sunday services, said she was very excited but
very nervous.

''I'm too concerned with getting the service right,'' she said. ''As we are
the first, people will watch closely and those who are a bit against us will
say, 'Ah, she's got it wrong, she can't do it.' ''

Christina Rees, a member of the General Synod's laity who speaks for the
Movement for the Ordination of Women, pronounced it ''a great day'' as she
was caught in a crowd outside Bristol Cathedral. ''I'm actually beginning to
believe this is actually happening,'' she said with a laugh.

The ordination of women has become common throughout the Anglican Church in
other countries since the first woman, Florence Li Tim Oi, was ordained in
the Portuguese colony of Macao in 1944, a time when there was a shortage of
male candidates because of the war.

There are now about 1,380 female priests in churches within the Anglican
Communion around the world. The Episcopal Church in the United States as well
as Anglican churches in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries
have had female priests and even bishops for years. The Presbyterian Church
of Scotland also ordains women.

Pavel Chichikov

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 10:33:24 AM3/14/94
to
>
> In a statement issued only hours before the ceremony in Bristol, the chief
> Vatican spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, said Pope John Paul II ''had
> clearly and publicly affirmed that the ordination of women also constitutes a
> profound obstacle to every hope of reunion between the Catholic Church and
> the Anglican Communion.''
>
> ''This reunion is and remains a great hope, which this new obstacle makes
> more difficult,'' Navarro-Valls said, referring to talks between the Vatican
> and the Church of England on possible reunion that began shortly after the
> Second Vatican Council.

What's bad mannered about that?
The Vatican views the Anglican decision to ordain women as
unfortunate and ill-advised.
Did Navarro-Valls swear or spit?
I have a friend, who happens to be a woman, who is working toward
seminary and ordination within the Episcopal Church. As long as it's not
the Catholic Church, I say more power to her.
But I'm not a spokesman for the Vatican. I also have no
fundamental objection to female priests. But as long as the hierarchy says
no, it's no. My objection to women as Catholic priests is that the Pope
says they can't be priests.
I think it would be unfortunate and ill-advised for me to invent
my own religion each morning.

J.J. Ursic

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 10:55:48 AM3/14/94
to
Pavel Chichikov <fish...@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> writes:
>My objection to women as Catholic priests is that the Pope
>says they can't be priests.

Now if he could just get Him to stop calling them. -J.J.

Philip Curran

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 11:18:52 AM3/14/94
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 1994, Paul Halsall wrote:

> ANGLICAN CHURCH ORDAINS 32 WOMEN
>
> BITTER DEBATE CONTINUES AS SOME CLERGY RESIGN; SHARP REACTION COMES FROM
> VATICAN
>
>

> The two decades are sometimes said to be the most divisive period in the
> church since Henry VIII established it, and severed the nation's ties to the
> Church of Rome over Pope Clement VII's refusal to annul his marriage to
> Katharine of Aragon so he could wed Anne Boleyn. And there are signs the
> split has not ended.

A famous literary Irishman -Brendan Behan - native of my City - Dublin,
once made the following rather blunt statement.
'The Church of England was founded on the Bollox of Henry VIII"
(Borstal Boy)
It seems they have moved their foundations somewhat !!

Philip Curran

Pavel Chichikov

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 2:50:26 PM3/14/94
to

Disappointment is good therapy for the soul. Perhaps they're
specially blessed.
Pavel

Tom Kreitzberg

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 3:24:47 PM3/14/94
to
Pavel writes:

> > >My objection to women as Catholic priests is that the Pope
> > >says they can't be priests.
> >
> > Now if he could just get Him to stop calling them. -J.J.

[Or is it, if He could just get them to stop calling him? :-]

> Disappointment is good therapy for the soul. Perhaps they're
> specially blessed.

Something like, "Happy are the married men and women, for they
shall be the priests of Heaven?" Could be. Not a bad assignment,
either; no budgetary concerns, for one thing.

Tom

Pavel Chichikov

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 6:27:49 PM3/14/94
to

Disappointment = married ?

Not me for one, Tom.

God bless women - we male human wretches don't deserve them.
When and if the Pope says 'Ordain 'em' I'm all for it. Imagine the
chagrin, though, of those Anglicans who came over.
Peace,
Pavel

Bryan D. Boyle

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 6:48:35 PM3/14/94
to

It would be nicer if He would give the rest of us the same gift of
prophesy and understanding that JJ seems to have arrogated solely to
himself.

Must be such a blessing to be so perfect, JJ. Tell me, are you as
perfect as you seem to imply you are?


--
Bryan D. Boyle |Physical: ER&E, Clinton, NJ (908) 730-3338
#include <disclaimer> |Virtual: bdb...@erenj.com
"If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." -Patton
Pardon me, I'm lost, can you direct me to the information superhighway?

Bryan D. Boyle

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 6:49:43 PM3/14/94
to
He did. They became anglicans. Don't you read the paper?

Steve Popovich

unread,
Mar 15, 1994, 6:38:53 AM3/15/94
to
> Something like, "Happy are the married men and women, for they
> shall be the priests of Heaven?" Could be. Not a bad assignment,
> either; no budgetary concerns, for one thing.

What need, pray tell, would one have for priests in Heaven? The
blessed in Heaven are with God Himself. It would be a really easy
assignment. I imagine that a priest in Heaven wouldn't need to offer
Mass. After all, why "do this in memory of me", as Jesus said, when
Christ Himself is there with you? And there would be no need for
confessions, either, since all sin, and the tendency to sin, would be
gotten rid of before entering Heaven.

Or any other sacraments, for that matter. The sacraments, and the
sacramental priesthood, are for those who live in this world. The
phrase "priests of Heaven" really seems contradictory to me. Why
would there be priests, in the sense of intermediaries between mankind
and God*, in Heaven, where everyone is directly in God's Presence?

*In the sense of those who were priests during their lives going to
heaven, of course, I imagine that many do. However, I don't see that
they'd be different from any of the other blessed souls in Heaven.
-Steve

J.J. Ursic

unread,
Mar 15, 1994, 8:55:06 AM3/15/94
to
"Bryan D. Boyle" <bdb...@ERENJ.COM> writes:
>UR...@CLACK.CS.HH.AB.COM> writes:
>>Pavel Chichikov <fish...@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> writes:
>>>My objection to women as Catholic priests is that the Pope
>>>says they can't be priests.
>>
>>Now if he could just get Him to stop calling them. -J.J.

>It would be nicer if He would give the rest of us the same gift of


>prophesy and understanding that JJ seems to have arrogated solely to
>himself.

I don't think it's hard to recognize discrimination and bigotry.

>Must be such a blessing to be so perfect, JJ. Tell me, are you as
>perfect as you seem to imply you are?

Well, I've never bowled a 300 game and I don't bat 1000 in my softball
league and I've even been known to get upset once a year. I hope this
doesn't spoil your image of me :-) -J.J.

J.J. Ursic

unread,
Mar 15, 1994, 9:01:59 AM3/15/94
to
"Bryan D. Boyle" <bdb...@ERENJ.COM> replies to me

>>Now if he could just get Him to stop calling them. -J.J.
>He did. They became anglicans. Don't you read the paper?

I see this as a positive step for Bryan to acknowledge that God is
calling women to be priests. -J.J.

Pavel Chichikov

unread,
Mar 15, 1994, 9:16:49 AM3/15/94
to
>
> I don't think it's hard to recognize discrimination and bigotry.

In ourselves they're almost invisible.

'Orthodoxy is my doxy. Heterodoxy is another man's doxy.'

Who said that?

Best,
Pavel

J.J. Ursic

unread,
Mar 15, 1994, 9:35:44 AM3/15/94
to
Pavel Chichikov <fish...@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> writes:
> Disappointment is good therapy for the soul. Perhaps they're
>specially blessed.

Better therapy would be fullfillment of a calling including the grace
that comes with ordination. -J.J.

Bryan D. Boyle

unread,
Mar 15, 1994, 9:43:10 AM3/15/94
to

No, I am acknowledging that churches not in communion with Rome are following
their own ideas and removing themselves even further from union with
the Faith.

I can call you St. Joseph, that doesn't make you so.

The archbishop of Canterbury can call them priests, that doesn't make them
so, since his authority is strictly local, and ineffective in any case.

Ed Sayre

unread,
Mar 15, 1994, 4:55:24 PM3/15/94
to

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the Internet...:)

Peace,
Ed

Pavel Chichikov

unread,
Mar 16, 1994, 12:22:19 AM3/16/94
to

Apostle to the Electrons [which are, however, massless, sexless
and repulsive]
Cheers,
Pavel

Pavel Chichikov

unread,
Mar 16, 1994, 12:01:08 PM3/16/94
to
On Wed, 16 Mar 1994, Tom Kreitzberg wrote:

> Pavel writes:
>
> > Apostle to the Electrons [which are, however, massless, sexless
> > and repulsive]
>

> Which, I'd say, if I weren't such a nice person, sounds like a description
> of some anti-Catholic fundamentalists I've met.
>
> Tom
>
Electrons aren't fundamentalist, just fundamental.
Best,
Pavel

Steve Creps

unread,
Mar 16, 1994, 2:55:55 PM3/16/94
to
In article <9403150855...@clack.cs.hh.ab.com>,

J.J. Ursic <UR...@CLACK.CS.HH.AB.COM> wrote:
>>Must be such a blessing to be so perfect, JJ. Tell me, are you as
>>perfect as you seem to imply you are?
>
>Well, I've never bowled a 300 game and I don't bat 1000 in my softball
>league and I've even been known to get upset once a year. I hope this
>doesn't spoil your image of me :-) -J.J.

Everyone knows that Ursine Infallibility is only in matters of faith
and morals, and does not extend to athletics.

- - - - - - - - - -
Steve Creps, Indiana University
cr...@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Dan Hydar

unread,
Mar 17, 1994, 12:16:55 PM3/17/94
to
>From: Steve Creps <uunet!LATERAN.UCS.INDIANA.EDU!creps>

>
> Everyone knows that Ursine Infallibility is only in matters of faith
>and morals, and does not extend to athletics.
>

As proof, look at the UCLA Bruins and the Cal Bears....


|Dan|
tig...@wet.com

Ed Sayre

unread,
Mar 17, 1994, 5:25:01 PM3/17/94
to

What game was it, the UCLA-Notre Dame game of '71 where ND came back from
a 70-59 deficit to win in the last couple of minutes 71-70?

Peace.
Ed

Robert Panoff

unread,
Mar 19, 1994, 2:17:50 AM3/19/94
to

Just a minor correction of the date:

January, 1974. Bill Walton with a shot and two attempted "put backs" in the
last 10 seconds after Dwight "Ice Man" Clay had sunk the go ahead basket.
A final rebound by John Shumate and the game was history. I remember it
as if it were yesterday...

That ended UCLA's 88 game winning streak. Now for the trivia question of
the day: who was the last team to have beaten UCLA before the 88-game
winning streak started?

Bob

Joseph Berg

unread,
Mar 20, 1994, 4:13:26 PM3/20/94
to
In article <Pine.3.89.9403160...@access2.digex.net>,
Pavel Chichikov <fish...@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> wrote:

> Apostle to the Electrons [which are, however, massless, sexless
> and repulsive]

Not being one to tolerate physics errors on the internet, the mass of
an electron is about 9.1x10^-34 kg (hopefully my memory serves). Not
that a few extra would weigh you down...

Peace and God bless

-Scott Berg

--
J. Scott Berg Real mail: Varian Physics; Stanford CA 94305-4060
email: j...@leland.stanford.edu
phone: (415) 326-2631 (h) (415) 926-4732 (w)

Pavel Chichikov

unread,
Mar 21, 1994, 6:55:18 AM3/21/94
to
Thanks for your correction to the effect that electrons DO have
mass. That would explain why I feel heavier on those rare occasions when I
think.
Electronically yours,
Pavel

Thomas McGinnis

unread,
Mar 20, 1994, 11:02:56 PM3/20/94
to
In article <2mie9m$3...@nntp2.stanford.edu>,

Joseph Berg <j...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>In article <Pine.3.89.9403160...@access2.digex.net>,
>Pavel Chichikov <fish...@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> wrote:
>
>> Apostle to the Electrons [which are, however, massless, sexless
>> and repulsive]
>
>Not being one to tolerate physics errors on the internet, the mass of
>an electron is about 9.1x10^-34 kg (hopefully my memory serves). Not
>that a few extra would weigh you down...

By all means, let's keep the facts about electrons straight and sober.

*Photons*, on the other hand, you can make light of....

Pax et Bonum,
Tom.
--
Thomas F. McGinnis tfm+Ca...@cmu.edu
Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon, 5000 Forbes Ave, Pgh, PA 15213-3890
Any opinions are mine except where noted, and not necessarily those of CMU.
spes mea in Deo nunc scripsi totum da mihi potum

0 new messages