Talk:Ordination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Ordination is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Ordination, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Ordination of women and on the ordination of homosexuals

I have just removed the sections on the ordination of women and on the ordination of homosexuals because they are entirely and unsalvageably POV. While such sections do have a place in an expanded article on ordination, the text I have removed was little more than a polemic against religions that do not ordain women and/or homosexuals.

The "online ordination" section began with the sentence "The non-authoritarian religious denominations such as Spiritual Humanism, and the Universal Life Church prefer to empower their clergy by minimizing the impediments to those that feel the calling to make a spiritual connection to the cosmos." This implies that religions that do not practice online ordination are "authoritarian," which the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as "of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority." Clearly, this is POV. The rest of the section sounds like a sales pitch: "Reducing the barriers to performing religious ceremonies these denominations encourage those who within the general population to realize spiritual experience. By enabling friends or relatives to perform ceremonies like marriages, organizations that offer online ordination demystify and integrate religious understanding into lives of the otherwise nonreligious public." However reasonable or unreasonable it may be to characterize online ordination as "demystify[ing] and integrat[ing] religious understanding," this obviously does not represent a neutral point of view.

Here is the "ordination of women" section reproduced in full:

Most religions value and uphold the spiritual rights, abilities, and worth of women. Some reactionary and ultra-right wing denominations use gender to limit the number of members qualified for positions of religious leadership.

Among discriminatory churches the equal rights of all people to be ordained are denied. Religious groups like the Catholic Church, Mormons, Eastern Orthodoxy, Southern Baptist Convention, Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, and the Jehovah's Witnesses often site cryptic supernatural rules for their misogynist policies.

The first paragraph equates "the spiritual rights, abilities, and worth of women" with the practice of ordaining women, which is also clearly POV. Loaded words like "reactionary" and "ultra-right wing" are, of course, inherently POV. "[T]he equal rights of all people to be ordained" is an assertion that belongs in a manifesto, not an encyclopedia. "Cryptic supernatural rules" is clearly used pejoratively, which represents another clear instance of POV, not to mention the explicit attack on "the Catholic Church, Mormons, Eastern Orthodoxy, Southern Baptist Convention, Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, and the Jehovah's Witnesses" as "misogynist."

And here is the "ordination of homosexuals" reproduced in full:

Most mainstream denominations recognize and affirm the right of clergy who are consenting adults to enter into relationships with other consenting adults regardless of their sexual orientation or gender. These organizations usually take the position that homosexuality is an inherent trait in an individual's makeup and not a choice that can consciously be decided one way or the other.

Groups that practice discrimination against women are most likely to also to attempt to enforce draconian codes against homosexuals in leadership positions.

It not only POV but probably inaccurate to claim that "[m]ost mainstream denominations recognize and affirm the right of clergy...to enter into relationships...regardless of their sexual orientation or gender," considering the controversy that periodically arises regarding homosexual clergy. In any case, the word "mainstream" is unambiguously used in concert with the terms "reactionary" and "ultra-right wing" to advance a POV. The statement that religious "organizations [that] usually take the position that homosexuality is...not a choice..." are the only "mainstream denominations" is further evidence of this POV.

Characterizing the practice of certain religions of ordaining only men as "discrimination women" is also POV, considering the highly negative connotations of the word "discrimination." "Draconian" is also a poor choice of words insofar as one wishes to maintain an NPOV.

While I personally sympathize (somewhat) with the positions advanced in the sections I removed, I find them completely at odds with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Iridius 09:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC) ____

Heck, I coulda' conveyed all the above in one small paragraphlet.

I have since created the Women as theological figures article - anything useful from the above can be transferred to it. Jackiespeel 22:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican with apostolic continuity mention: must be a joke!

"In the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Oriental Orthodox churches, the ordination is the same thing as Holy Orders and can be adminstered only by a bishop in a line of succession of bishops dating back to the Apostles."

Which is of course false, since a bishop can only be created by the Pope (or three bishops explicitly tasked as such by the pope in rare cases related to travel difficulty). Since anglicans split from Rome, they have no bishops with apostolic continuity, as the pope refuses to bless them. Without bishops connected to Jesus via the apostolic succession, valid priests cannot be created. Therefore all henry8ist "priests" are false prophets and whatever they administer is invalid. Only catholic, orthodox, copts and possibly the Thomas-christians in India have apostolic continuity, any protestants definitely do not.

The very idea that woman can be a head of church show anglicanism is heresy and not connected to the apostles, because they were all male by Jesus' choice. The Old Testament clearly prescribes that priesthood must not be installed in any person whose male member is unnoticably short or hangs below the kneee and QEII certainly fails that test. When a new Pope is chosen in Rome, he is carefully inspected that he is indeed male and not a female impostor (there is a legend of an early medieval woman bribing her way to papacy and giving birth during the mass, although historians think it has no factual basis). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... you're not biased there or anything! No sir, there's no POV here! (Oh, and signing comments is usually a good idea)
Emerymat 23:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
As a Presbyterian, I'm curious: if Anglican bishops have no apostolic continuity because they split from Rome, how do Orthodox bishops? I'm not clear why the Act of Supremacy is considered to have been worse than the Great Schism.
Nyttend 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Not because they split from Rome, but because they have or have had irreconciliable doctrinal differences with the See of Peter, especially on the nature of the Episcopal order, but also on abortion, homosexuality and the ordaining of women. Even if the Patriarchs disagree on the primacy of the Petrine See, they all hold the same views on the nature of the Sacrament of Ordination. Thus, their ordinations are valid. --Wtrmute (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a little-known precedent of canon law that, when an area has no clergy to administer sacraments, priests have license to ordain bishops. This brings Anglicans and Methodists into the Apostolic Succession. The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury was validly elected by English bishops and John Wesley's ordination of a Methodist Bishop for America (a land with no priests to administer sacraments after the recall of Anglican priests) was based on the Alexandrian precedent of a presbyter (priest) ordaining a bishop in cases of emergency. See Methodist Apostolicity --ajgwm10 (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely with your mention here of a "precedent of canon law" you will cite something more than the speculations about Alexandria, right? You'll present actual western canon law, complete with details of what synod decided in what year with what actual text, right? failing that... Tb (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Anglican clergy in America were almost all Loyalists during the War for Independence, and when the Continental Congress deemed that prayers for British leaders were to be prosecuted as acts of treason, almost all of them left, either for Canada or for Britain. The Church in America wasn't placed under Interdict (if the Anglican Communion even does that sort of thing). Their members were still meant to receive the sacraments, and although baptism technically requires no clergy, the Eucharist DOES, and when all of your priests leave, you cannot obey Christ's commandment to "do this in remembrance of me." Wesley saw this as an ecclesiastical emergency and consecrated Thomas Coke to the episcopate in 1784 and sent him to America, at a time when it wasn't certain the Anglican Church would make any effort to maintain its presence in America. They did, eventually, reform the American province of the Church as the Episcopal Church, but this postdated the Constitution by three years and the consecration of the first Methodist bishops by six. If the American and British churches had been more intentional about their separation, rather than letting the sacramental welfare of their American adherents hang in the balance, this extraordinary episcopal consecration would not have been necessary.

(talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So, there is no precedent to be mentioned. I'm fully aware of the history of the separation, which you seem not to be. In no way to "almost all" leave. Nor is the question whether we approve of John Wesley's actions. Some did, some did not. Presumably most Methodist do. But that's really irrelevant. There is no "little known" provision of canon law which sanctioned John Wesley's actions, and the question has nothing to do with the validity of Anglican orders, which, as already pointed out above, is concerned with the succession.

Tb (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian POV needs to be fixed

This article only discusses Christian ordination. It should equally discuss ordination in other religions, e.g. Buddhism. I have added a POV-because template to this effect. McDutchie 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Has now been broadened - template removed Paul foord 00:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I would further suggest that the Zen Buddhism ordination portion is backhandedly snide and condescending...*Another initiation document states that “not making an outward show of cultivating the precepts while inwardly not clinging to false views truly is to become a monk.”[2] These texts pondering the meaning of silence assert that the dead actually make ideal Zen monks...* I seriously doubt this to be the case. Assert? Really? They assert something ridiculous? Even if the theme was used of a corpse, as in becoming like a corpse, this has to be diciphered within context of the literature, not blandly turned into a bad joke. How about something more like "all I can see in all this Soto Zen stuff is..."? At least that would be more accurate, that the writer of that line was not only not being sympathetic to, but hostile towards, the ideas of what makes a good monk. In actuality, if this person had much penetrated the text, whoever he/she may be, I think they would have found an incredible flexibility and open-mindedness is what makes for a good Zen monk. I'm rewording this phrase out... 98.197.91.158 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I doubt I can do justice to it. I suggest that those with in-depth familiarity with these texts re-read this article passage and see if the implied sarcasm rings in their ears, also. If not, then I humbly bow out of it. Even if so, I still bow humbly out of it.98.197.91.158 (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The standards of the ordination in every lineage need to be addressed and ...

....HARMONIZED.

The reason is that in some lineages, ordained monks and nuns are not supposed to live together under one roof even for a married couple while other lineages have practiced in such a way. That is how conflicts happen in that one lineage accuses another being an occult.

What I would like to get clearified is that whether the celibacy is a compulsary practice for ordained monks and nuns of every lineage. If so, how can we get convinced that a married couple who also happen to be a monk and a nun live under one roof is maintaining celibacy and not breach the code of conduct?

I found one cited ref at

http://www.mindground.net/celibacy.html

which indicates that one of the meaning in celibacy for ordained buddhists is to "give up family"

In regardless whether to humane or not, this is how the tradition is. If someone is questioning the humanity on that issue, please raise their opinions and arguments with reasoning.

Also, I believe that with different lineages, the definition of celibacy is different. As in the case of pharmaceutical standard compliance issue discussed at Talk:ISO 9362, if one of the standards is contradict to another and make the dual-comliance impossible then either of the standards must be updated with a sound scientific backup, or just meet a single standard with a clear-cut label BEFORE serious UPGRADE. This opinion is only for "production" scale not for non-sale home-made practice though :-). Of course, even home-made for non-sale purposes but for pioneer/pilot research purposes should be open to professional audit, rather than to political enforcement with a bias attached in most cases. However, anyone who is from outside is to do auditing, please do not forget to pay accommodation if they stay overnight.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Community of Christ

This section is in need of clean up. It should focus only on ordination within the Community of Christ in so far as it is different from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I'm not even sure this section needs to remain the article at all. Dgf32 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)