Talk:Ordination of women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Anglicanism Portal

Ordination of women is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

There was never any ordination in the early Church, nor is there any evidence for such action. The Pauline epistles (Romans 16, etc) that talk about a certain woman whose title is "bishop" or "deaconess" is most likely an ancient Greek tradition where the wife of the bishop or deacon is called bishop/deaconess which still persists in some countries in Eastern Europe (e.g. Bulgaria). I know that if I try to edit that part which slaps the claim that women were clergy in the early Church some feminist/political correct person will immediately warn me and this is precisely why no professor considers wikipedia a trustworthy, credible source.

WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

	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 of women, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) There was never any ordination in the early Church, nor is there any evidence for such action. The Pauline epistles (Romans 16, etc) that talk about a certain woman whose title is "bishop" or "deaconess" is most likely an ancient Greek tradition where the wife of the bishop or deacon is called bishop/deaconess which still persists in some countries in Eastern Europe (e.g. Bulgaria). I know that if I try to edit that part which slaps the claim that women were clergy in the early Church some feminist/political correct person will immediately warn me and this is precisely why no professor considers wikipedia a trustworthy, credible source.

	This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

[edit] Anglicanism

I noticed this line:

The nearly simultaneous publication by the Vatican of the Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, which argued that truth was immutable however unpalatable, was a coincidence which was not lost on many traditionalist Anglicans, who converted to Catholicism in droves.

The phrase 'in droves' is potentially POV and is unsourced. How many traditional Anglicans converted to Catholicism following women's ordination, what proportion of traditional Anglicans was this, and what proportion of all Anglicans was this?

Sidefall 13:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Comments

Perhaps the role of abbesses in the Middle Ages - some of whom were significant politically and theologically - could be considered as part of the discussion.

A few comments on the subject would be welcome on Women as theological figures.

Jackiespeel 22:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re the women catholic priest ordination

In a nod to my conservative friend, Ann Heneghan (I too am very conservative), I made mention of the fact that the ordination of Ludmila was not well known, but, in truth, it seems to have occurred. Maybe I am missing something here: Didn't Pope John Paul II have something to say about this? ~~If so, then maybe this should be added for fairness and balance. I may find something.~~ Scratch that: I found assertions on both sides of the coin: Sources state both that the Pope supported AND did not support the ordination of women; About the only thing upon which they all agree is that this practice is a private matter.--GordonWatts 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I think that there's now too much about the issue of Ludmila. It's not just a question of whether or not her ordination (if it took place) is valid. We've also got to remember that this is not an article about her, or about the Catholic teaching on women's ordination. I think that too much focus on her story upsets the balance of an article about women's ordination in general (throughout the ages and in different churches). Also, I really don't think it's necessary to find someone who quotes Pope John Paul as saying "Who says women can't be ordained?" and adding that for balance. It's completely unverified, and I can assure you, that pope (like all other popes) was against women's ordination for his entire pontificate – whether rightly or wrongly. He didn't decide in 1994, at the time of writing Ordinatio sacerdotalis; that document was produced with the intention of putting an end to the debate. He said that women's ordination was impossible in October 1979, during his visit to the United States. I've taken out that bit. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 13:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Ordination of Women

Gordon: I'm going to reply in dark blue, like I usually do --and use titles to differentiate the unique speakers.--GordonWatts 03:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Patsw: Fisking the section dealing with the alleged ordination of Ludmila Javorova:

Gordon: Thank you for your critiquing and feedback here, Pat.--GordonWatts 03:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, a quote from the article: More recently, with vocations declining in Western world, some have made the utilitarian argument that women must be ordained in order to have enough priests to administer the Catholic Sacraments.

Patsw: Who are the some who have made the utilitarian argument? Citation, please.

Gordon: Good point; I did not make this edit, and it certainly could use a citation to quote that "anonymous someone."--GordonWatts 03:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There is precedent for such ordinations.

Patsw: For this to be a precedent for valid and licit ordination of women, they themselves would have to be valid and licit. What would be encyclopedic about including any invalid or illicit ordinations in this article?

Gordon: You mean that in order for it to be logical to follow the "precedent," first you must establish that the precedent is legitimate? That is true. I am not a Catholic, and, even if I were, I would have some difficulty answering this. Also, our personal opinions don't matter: We just report on both sides of the argument. I hope I did a good job of that in my own edits.--GordonWatts 03:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, a quote from the article: Under Communism in the former Czechoslovakia, in the later half of the twentieth century, women were ordained as priests to serve the underground Catholic Church.

Patsw: If these ordinations happened, they were invalid as the Church did not then or does not now ordain women. A bishop acting alone does not have the authority to change the law of the Church in this regard.

Gordon: Again, I don't know for sure. There were allegations on both sides of the issue -both regarding the church at large and even dispute over what side the Pope took.--GordonWatts 03:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, a quote from the article: Due to heavy religious persecution, many women and men Catholics were imprisoned, and an only-male priesthood could not serve all of the needy.

Patsw: This is a conclusion not supported by facts presented in the article. It is a point of view advocating of the ordination of women.

Gordon: That makes sense: The claims here should be cited with a source to verify the assertions and claims made by the article. Again, this was someone else's edit. I didn't leave this mess.--GordonWatts 03:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, a quote from the article: Five or six Czech women were ordained by consecrated Catholic bishops: the first was Ludmila Javorova, ordained in 1970.

Patsw: Evidence is on the net of only one such attempted ordination, that of Ludmila Javorova. If there is evidence of the other four or five attempted ordinations, it would be a big help to have a citation, and in particular the time, place, and bishop who performed these rituals of ordination, and their justification.

Gordon: Good point, as I addressed above; the original editors needed to provide more sources to verify. I tried to provide some sources supporting both sides of the issue.--GordonWatts 03:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, a quote from the article: Ordinations, such as hers, was [sic] not a well known fact at the time of occurrence - not even to those to whom Javorova ministered: "She was a priest, yet not known as one, even to her own parents. Ludmila could exercise her ordained calling only in private or by keeping her priestly faculties unknown to those she ministered to..."

Patsw: Such secrecy is understandable in the period from 1970 to 1990, but with the restoration of religious freedom in the Czech Republic, why would the five or six Czech women remain underground after 1990 if their ordinations were valid and licit as implied by this article?

Patsw: So if you take out the advocacy of the ordination of women and speculation, you are left with:

Gordon: I am not expert on these issues. Thanks for the feedback, Pat. I'll leave this matter to better minds; I did the best I could so far.--GordonWatts 03:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, a quote from the article: Advocates of the ordination of women made public the story of Ludmila Javorova in 1995 who according to her own account was ordained in 1970 as a priest in the underground Catholic Church of Czechoslovakia by Bishop Davidek.

Patsw: What other facts are there here? patsw 01:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

The Roman Catholicism section, having been nicely balanced by GordonWatts, has now been edited by someone who is pushing an anti-Women's ordination agenda, and their edits reflect that. Language like "based on only scant evidence" and "according to her own account" reflects this. This is a documented historical event, and cannot be called "speculation" simply because it does not conform to the church's self-image. Carolynparrishfan 17:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur and have reverted to the previous less POV version. KHM03 18:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Before we go any further down this road, KHM03 and Carolynparrishfan, what is your answer to this question:

Was the ordination of Ludmila Javorova valid and licit?

(valid means that objectively she became a priest of the Catholic Church, licit means in accord with the apostolic authority of the Church and Bishop Felix Maria Davídek).

I didn't add "based on only scant evidence" (that was Str1977) but if there is "abundant evidence" of the ordination of women, bring it on.

If the claim of Ludmila Javorova to have been ordained in 1970 has any evidence beyond the claim of Ludmila Javorova, bring it on.

This is an article for an encylopedia not a discussion board, and I write neutrally and accurately:

What other facts are there?

If the Church declared tomorrow that women could be ordained, I'd accept that declaration (as improbable as it sounds to me). Therefore I utterly reject the label of having an "anti-Women's ordination agenda". patsw 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pat is right. I did add the "scant evidence" phrase. I did so because it is true, as you can see when reading the article I linked to. The "evidence" is basically that Pope Gelasius condemned certain abuses of his time.

Also, may I state that this article is about "Ordination of women" in general, in this section in the RCC, and not just about Mrs Javorova.

Also, Carolyn, labelling other editors as you did, doesn't help anyone. I know that some supporter of women's ordination use that tactic, but you shouldn't stoop to that. Str1977 08:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1) The ordinations were not licit. I, along with other advocates of WO, consider them valid.

2) Cardinal Vlk confirmed that they had taken place.

3) In what place did I "label" an editor? Carolynparrishfan 12:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

3) Carolyn, I have to apologize: I misread "anti-Women's ordination agenda" as "anti-women agenda". I have seen this happen countless times(including one of the linked advocacy articles), but you are blameless in that regard. Still, I consider the "scant evidence" phrase to be accurate.

2) I'm not denying that they have taken place. I guess Mrs Javorova wasn't the only one, but she#s the only one we know of.

1) We agree that they were not licit. However, I must say that they are invalid in light of the consitent teaching of the Church. And an abuse, even if it were okayed by the Pope (as CNWR claims) does not make it right. Hypothetically, you might say that they were valid but illicit when looking back, if this doctrine were to be changed. But I don't think this will happen. After all, this teaching is as close to infallibility as it can get (see article on that)

Str1977 13:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So, Carolynparrishfan and other advocates of WO consider them valid. Well then, you should have your own section apart from the section on the Catholic Church which considers them invalid.

I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. The Catholic Church teaches the Ludmila Javorova was not validly ordained. Objectively, she was not ordained. Or is that disputed?

Why do the all articles on the advocacy of the ordination of women use the word confirm in to refer to the fact that Cardinal Vlk was aware of Javorova's claims to have been ordained and to have been vicar general? Vlk gave interviews in the 90's to inform the public of the invalidity of Davidek's ordination of Javorova and perhaps other women as well, in the event they ever identify themselves. Nothing was confirmed.

Advocates of the ordination of women made public the story of Ludmila Javorova in 1995 who according to her own account was ordained in 1970 as a priest in the underground Catholic Church of Czechoslovakia by Bishop Davidek. In 1990, Bishop Jan Blaha denied the validity of her ordination and she ceased to practice as a priest.

For the last time, where are the facts (apart from the advocacy of women's ordination)?

Let me preempt an accusation, Javorova may have sincerely believed herself to have been validly ordained. I am not making the accusation of fraud in this regard. patsw 01:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

To say "attempted" ordination is POV. Whether the ordination was valid is obviously not agreed upon. Carolynparrishfan 12:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

We can't say the ordination took place or not, so "attempted" is correct, as that is the language used by the Church in such matters. It does not conclude that an ordination takes place, but states the act of the Bishop. As Church law goes, the final arbiter of validity of Ordination is the Holy See. This is the language they use routinely. If we are talking about a CAtholic act, then we need to use Catholic terms.

I still am looking for a primary source, If it happened, then Church documentation should be simple, if only one person claims it, then it is alleged. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the most NPOV move would be to say something like, "The validity of the ordination is disputed." KHM03 13:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, what I was trying to do is add attempted because as it reads, the act was completed. "Attempted" means it was tried, but we don't know if it succeeded or not. The text reads with the PoV that it was valid, thats not NPoV. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. So maybe if we just say "the validity is disputed", that would be NPOV. It seems that we have several differing views here, and this seems reasonable, fair, NPOV, and nice. KHM03 13:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Are there any remaining POV objections? patsw 16:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A new POV objection in the "Some beginning dates for ordination of women" section. The text of this section has been copied from a pro-women's ordination website. The wording of some of the entries reflects this, particularly in the earlier entries.Trinite (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic section

Perhaps we can make better sense of the article and present this in NPoV is we organize the topic in some sembalance of order

May I suggest:

Church Position
Historical Issues
Dissenting Claims
Official Vatican Responses

Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 11:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Lesson in Modality

Hello, everyone. Sorry to be a bit of a pain in the neck, but in recent years I've taken (as a hobby) a lot of courses in linguistics and language analysis. I'm especially interested in the issue of modality. Epistemic modality relates to the degree to which something is asserted in a text. For example, "He definitely took it" is in higher modality than "He may have taken it". Even without using adverbs like "definitely", and auxiliary verbs like "may", we can still place things in higher or lower modality by using words such as "said", "claims", etc. "John saw her" is in higher modality than "John says he saw her"; "John says he saw her" is in higher modality than "John claims he saw her".

I have been arguing about modality for months on the talk pages of Wikipedia. For example one of the articles I'm involved with relates to a case where a woman collapsed in the house when she was alone with her husband. Her parents and siblings believe that he tried to strangle her. Most of the editors on that article sided with the husband, and I had to argue for months to get the modality reduced for claims that he had made. At one stage the article said that she collapsed in the hallway of their home, that the noise woke him, and that he immediately called emergency services. The supporters of the husband, being in the majority, tended to revert on sight any attempts by the supporters of the parents, and I had to argue for months before I successfully managed to change it to say that she collapsed in her home and that arriving in response to her husband's 911 call found her face downwards in the hall. There were many other instances in that article where Wikipedians made the article report as an undisputed fact things that were completely unverifiable (whether true or not), which the husband had claimed.

What has this got to do with women's ordination? Well, I am concerned at the level of modality used when referring to these ordinations. It is a fact that Ludmila Javorova came forward claiming to have been ordained. I have my own opinions as to whether or not this ordination, if it really happened, would be valid, but it's not for Wikipedia to make judgments as to the validity of sacraments. However, I would like to know what source there is for saying that this ordination or attempted ordination actually took place. Bishop Davidek died in 1988, and it was only after his death that Javorova came forward. She claims that there were other women, but no other women have come forward. Is there a proper source? Obviously, if Javorova makes that claim, all the pro-women's ordination groups are going to eagerly latch on to the story and report it as a fact. It may be a fact – I don't know. But the fact that she claims it, and that women's ordination groups, based on their belief of her claims, also report it does not mean it happened. For the Wikipedia article to claim that it happened (regardless of whether or not it's valid), there would need to be some documents signed by the late Bishop Davidek, or some other papers from the local church.

The article on Lucy Walter does not say that she secretly married Charles II. Nor should it, since it isn't verified, even though the claim was made. However, although some Wikipedians may doubt the validity of Prince Charles's marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles, it's entirely appropriate to report that the marriage took place.

So, before we decide on the level of modality proper to the claims about the Czech women, we have to ascertain the level of verifiable evidence that Bishop Davidek really did say the words of ordination over Ludmila Javorova, and that he really did say them over four or five other women? Carolynparrishfan says the Cardinal confirmed that they took place. Patsw says that the Cardinal made statements to say that such ordinations would not have been valid, without actually confirming that they took place. Does anybody have his actual words? If he really did say that they happened, this was presumably based on the existence of documents to which he had access. I presume even in the Underground Church, records would have been kept of sacraments such as Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony, and Holy Orders.

I think that's the first thing to sort out. Then we can decide whether to say "was ordained", "claims to have been ordained", "went through an ordination ceremony", or whatever. We also need to look at the balance – I don't mean just between pro and con, I mean with regard to how much coverage should be given to the claims of one woman in one Church, in an article that deals with women's ordination in general. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 12:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The second part is the ability to perform as a Priestess. In Catholicism a Bishop must incardinate a Priest. This gives them the ability to practice. If she was secretly ordained by a Bishop, she stil could not be incardinated. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Ann, for that thoughtful analysis. Carolynparrishfan 12:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Carolynparrishfan, I don't think it was as much an analysis as it is a set of questions which I will attempt to answer.

It's important to know who knew what when. First we don't know with certainty any details of what went on from 1970 to 1990 beyond what Javorova claims. The reason for qualifying "claims" is there there appears to be no formal records kept of the mission of Bishop Davidek who as far as I can determine was not given a territorial diocese.

If there were physical evidence, witnesses, etc. beyond what Javorova has said, it would have been made public by now. After 1990 and the elevation of the underground Church to above ground status, Bishops Blaha and Cardinal Vlk have given interviews to repeat that Javorova is not a priest of the Catholic Church. This is where confirmed begins to appear as spin (or distortion) of these interviews from 15 years ago. In these interviews they neither confirm nor deny that the ritual of the sacrament of Holy Orders was performed by Bishop Davidek on Javorova. They, like us, heard that the ritual took place and therefore address that.

My text states the facts with precision and is NPOV:

The fact that I hope the advocates of OOW would have been able to dig up would be some corroboration that ritual actually took place like a first-hand account or documentation of it.

Where are the facts?

On a side-note to Ann, the only validity claim the Wikipedia should record is the one the Church makes, or in this case denies. Catholics believe its declaration on the validity of sacraments not to be one opinion among many, but objectively true. patsw 13:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Patsw and Carolynparrishfan. (By the way, is it okay to call you Carolyn, even though that may not be your name? It takes so long to write out the full name each time!) I think that if there's no verifiable evidence, then we shouldn't say that the ordinations took place. However, I've looked at Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, and I feel that we shouldn't use language that would cast too much doubt on it either. Wikipedia apparently likes "said" better than "claimed", because "claimed" carries a suggestion that something isn't true. So I would suggest something like,

In the 1990s, a Czech woman called Ludmila Javorova came forward to say that she and four or five other women had been ordained by Bishop Davidek in the 1970s, to serve as priests in the underground Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia. Bishop Davidek had died in 1988, and Cardinal Vlk announced that such ordinations could not have been valid.

Because of all the squabbling about POV that goes on at other Wikipedia talk pages, I've sometimes looked at articles about people who were accused of crimes, denied them, but were found guilty, and they nearly always say that X "was convicted of the murder of" Y, rather than that X "killed" Y. They don't say X "killed" Y, or X "was alleged to have killed" Y. The first makes a clear statement, in "high modality"; the second introduces suggestions that it may not be true. It's quite a challenge to see if we can find a wording that doesn't take sides. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 14:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If others make the claim that the ordination was valid, then we need to at least mention that, to be NPOV. Personally, one has a right to claim that the Church is the ultimate authority here ("Church" here defined, in this case, as the Roman Catholic institution...this specific denomination)...but if others disagree, then we need to mention that, or drift off into POV-land. That's fair, I think (see my proposal above under the "POV tag" section). KHM03 14:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I can accept the text offered by Ann with the following facts added:

Bishop Blaha was assigned the task of bringing into the above ground Church those who were in the underground Church. His actions in this matter were not merely announcements but declarations or determinations. Cardinal Vlk as Archbishhop of Prague merely repeated for the sake of clarity what had already taken place.
It's a significant fact to note that after Blaha's denial of the validity of her ordination, Javorova ceased to practice as a priest. patsw 15:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The "Citation needed" template

With regard to the disagreement between Str1977 and Jayjg, I'd like to know what kind of citation Jayjg has in mind. The Code of Canon Law says (Canon 1024) "Only a baptized male can validly receive sacred ordination." (Not "may receive", but "can validly receive".) The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same thing in Article 1577. Neither document points out the rather obvious fact that human beings (of whichever sex) who have been through an invalid ordination ceremony and who go round saying words of absolution without really absolving, and saying the words of consecration, while the bread and wine remain exactly what they were before, would not be helping with the problem of shortage of priests. However, many theologians have pointed out that if the ordination doesn't "take", and the subsequent absolutions, consecrations, and anointings don't "take", then this invalid ceremony hasn't achieved any good. Off the top of my head, I think I could quote Fr Peter Stravinskas (he certainly dealt with that in The Catholic Answer Book 1), Karl Keating, Fr John Hardon, Fr Manfred Hauke, Fr Kenneth Baker, Peter Kreeft, and Alice von Hildebrand. Apart from Fr Stravinskas, I'd want to check all the other writers to see exactly what they did say. I've read that argument dozens of times. I mean the argument "that such an approach is questionable, as long as theological reasons against ordaining women remain", not the argument that it would be "pointless, if these theological reasons would fall away". While I have no problem with the latter statement, I can't say that "Father X on page Y of his book says that this argument would be pointless". Could it be reworded to emphasize even more strongly that the Church's position is that such ordinations would be invalid, not improper, so that ordaining women at a time of priest shortage wouldn't help? After all, that is the Church's position. It would be like using potato cakes and cognac at Mass if there were a shortage of bread and wine. Nothing to do with not being as good as wheat – it's just that the Church believes Christ left her the power to administer sacraments with certain matter, not with different matter. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 19:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Invalid matter, invalid Sacrament. Catholic men are only validly ordained, by a validly consecrated Bishop, with the valid rite, all three of these thing shave been missing in most every "ordination" that has occured. Nothing else will do. That is how it works.

Please have some patience everyone. We have people working in good faith, and people we suspect may have forgotten that concept, same problems as editing traditionalist Catholic. (I am watching but not working on this article, I have one battle, I don't need another, yet.)Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The original point, I thought, was so obvious that it could have been deleted on that basis. The only point of even mentioning a "utilitarian" reason for ordaining women is a point of view that this reason did, does now, or will outweigh the theological reason in opposition to the ordination of women.

It is a stealth argument that the Church could, would, or should drop the so-called theological reason. This is purely speculative and if this argument was explicitly stated with a citation, it wouldn't treated neutrally, but regarded as advocacy. If you want to go down a speculative road, why not speculate that an ordained priesthood is not necessary and that before God, there is no difference between any baptized person and a bishop? patsw 20:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dominick and Pat for weighing in. May I lay open what my objective was: Some supporters of women's ordination (WO) make that utilitarian argument. And like all utilitarian arguments it contains the problem that it (at least in practice) denies the validity of principles. And that is POV. That's no problem as this passage was meant to present the different arguments and POVs. However, the counterpoint then can hardly be deleted because of being POV. This is what Jayjg did. I tried to tone down the language by saying that this is what opponents hold against that utilitarian argument. And now he demands citations for someone saying this. I cannot provide any (though I certainly heard something like that somewhere various times) because it is so obvious that it doesn't merit citation.

To explain the counter-point once more: Making that utilitarian argument rejects the concept of principles being involved. Since these principles however exist, the utilitarian argument is questionable. In case the principles were found to be wrong however, there'd be no need to argue in a utilitarian way - if there were no theological reason for restricting ordination to men, women of course would be ordained without resorting to "we need them because of a shortage of (male) priests". Str1977 10:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

When Jayjg gets time – I know how on Wikipedia you can get so overwhelmed by problems at one article that you might have to ignore questions at another article for days – he might address the question of what kind of citation he has in mind. If you look at my contributions, you'll see I've just been at Christianity and anti-Semitism (although it's been on my watchlist for some time), and I see a lot of weasel phrases such as, "Some people say ..."

Few Jews consider the New Testament anti-Semitic as such. The main concern of most Jews today is how the New Testament has been used to legitimate or provoke anti-Semitism.

Many New Testament passages criticise the Pharisees; it has been argued that these these passages have shaped the way that Christians have viewed Jews.

Some scholars have argued that some passages of the Gospels were written (or re-written) at this time to emphasize conflict with the Pharisees.

Some have also suggested that the Greek word Ioudaioi could also be translated "Judaeans".

I don't feel a strong need to put the {{Fact}} template after any of those (or similar) statements. Neither do I feel that there's any real need to put it after the phrase in this section that we are currently debating. My inclination would be to put it in after something that sounds a bit incredible and that makes you think: Where did they get that idea? For example if someone inserted into the article on Queen Elizabeth II, "Scholars have argued that Elizabeth may have secretly married her butler at the age of nineteen, and that therefore her marriage to Prince Philip was invalid." (Okay, that's an extreme example!)

I personally do not strongly support (or oppose) the bit about these arguments being pointless if the theological objections fall away. I'm happy with it or without it. I think we could drop it without sacrificing anything essential. I do, however, feel that it's important to stress the Church's position that if a bishop goes through the motions of performing an "ordination" on a woman, the sacrament doesn't "take". She's not a priest. When she says Mass, the bread and wine will still be bread and wine. When she abolves people from their sins, they won't really be absolved. Therefore, according to the Church, ordaining women would not be an answer to that problem. I've already mentioned Fr Stravinskas and others who have made such arguments. Can we come to some agreement about how it should be worded in the text? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 13:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I finally found my way back here. The whole sentence is original research, and, frankly, pointless. It adds nothing to the article to make these statements, which are merely statements of the obvious, and by claiming people (or "Opponents") actually do say these things, we are forced to now find people who do. I'll re-add the request for citation again - please find the "Opponents" who actually make these arguments, or, alternatively, recognize that the statement adds nothing and delete it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Template

What's left to dispute? patsw 03:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It was an anon IP without any explanation, see [1] Str1977 19:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing the template. If anyone wants to add it back, please indicate what the dispute is. patsw 03:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Priests

In October 2005, to coincide with a Vatican Synod on the Eucharist, a large group of Australian priests released a public call for the ordination of women and married men.

I though it would be easy to find a citation for this. I looked for this on the National Council of Priests web site and couldn't find it. Was it the priests themselves who advocated the ordination of women, or the leadership of NCP or some other group? patsw 15:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saulus

The catholic church opposition to female priesthood is based on Paul, the apostle. In one letter he wrote exactly that "women shall keep silent in the church building". You would have to rewrite the Bible to make priests out of ladies.

No, that's quite inaccurate. Nowhere in Church documents on non-ordination of Women is this verse cited as a reason; it's rather the example of Christ and tradition of the Church that serve as the basis for the opposition. The Catholic Church certainly doesn't believe that women ought to keep silent, as evidenced by the use of women as lectors, extraordinary ministers of the eucharist, guest homilists... and so forth. Makrina 21:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of England

I know editing those tables is difficult and tedious, but when someone has the time, please change the C of E's status. They most certainly do ordain women to the priesthood. Remember The Vicar of Dibley?Rockhopper10r 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to whomever fixed it.Rockhopper10r 17:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Anglican Church of Korea

Could you please change the status of ordination of women in the Anglican Church of Korea? Since 2001, the church has ordained women to the deaconate and priesthood. And there are no canonical bars to conscerate women to bishop, not ordained yet though. thanks for your attention. --fr.joo 20:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization and Improvements to the Catholic Section

I reorganized and rewrote the section on ordination in the Roman Catholic Church. I felt this was needed because the previous section showed a kind of frenetic pace, surely the result of many hands contributing a sentence here or there. I reorganized these into something more coherent and removed redundant material. Furthermore, the article read as if it were written in a “debate” style. I tried to make it more npov and altogether more encyclopedic. I did this by the aforementioned restructuring, as well as the inclusion of a multitude of citations. Indeed, every line I added includes at least one citation, and I also added citations to already existing passages. In my view, the section on dissenting position still needs more citations, and is still to argumentative in nature, but I was unable to contribute as much to that section and so more of the original structure is preserved. I encourage all to read and discuss my modifications. Please, I urge (since this is a controversial topic), examine the references before removing information, and always add a reference when including more information. This is especially important the topics more likely to turn into “debate forums” rather than articles. Lostcaesar 04:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions, Lostcaesar. As you suggested, today I tweaked the dissenting sub-section to sound less argumentative. I suspect it needs more work by someone with detailed knowledge. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I cleaned up the intro, which was beginning to sprawl with redundant information. The intro should be short and sweet. I put the relevant information removed into its proper sections.Lostcaesar 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You removed the info on Buddhism and Judaism, and made the intro exclusively about Christianity. The reader should be aware (in the lead section) that this is an issue that is present in several religions. Please remember that wikipedia is global. ntennis 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ntennis, I removed the material that was not about what "ordination of women" means. The material about Buddhism and Judaism was already contained in their sections. I would greatly like a mentioning of them in the intro, but it must be relevant to the intro material. The only discussion of Christianity in the intro is to clarify that consecration is not synonymous with ordination in Christianity (but, in Buddhism, it would be). I appreciate your changes. Lostcaesar 13:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if i sounded snappy. I see your point. I just thought the lead section should summarise the article, and I guess I'm (over-?) sensitive to systemic bias in wikipedia (where Christianity is said to be over-represented). ntennis 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the lead section should summarise the article. It is OK to repeat the body of the article. I ~~have~~ rewrote some of the lead section today when I noticed that the Christianity section was confusing and Islam was missing. You are, of course, welcome to edit it further. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the changes, and reverted, for these reasons: I don't like the word "roles", as it doesn’t express the debate accurately. The debate is over an office, not a role. You mentioned that protestant denominations ordain women twice, saying it became common 50 years ago – how common is it? Protestants are too diverse to really characterize like that without qualification. I don’t like the general addition of comments about the 20th century because, to summarize, they read to me like this "before the 20th century no one ordained women, but then some protestants started and now progress is as such that ordination is common among protestants." In other words, it has a subtle pov. Besides, protestants started ordaining women long before the twentieth century, so it is factually incorrect. Lostcaesar 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC) P.S., I think the spirit of your editing was good, btw, I just don't like the form. I think we can work something better here. I can see why someone would think the intro needs some revision. - LC

Ok. For debate, here is my proposal for the Christianity paragraph in the lead section:

Until the twentieth century, few Christian churches permitted the ordination of women, but now many Protestant denominations ordain women. In Roman Catholicism, Orthodox and Anglicanism, ordination is distinguished from religious or consecrated life and is the means by which one is included in one of the priestly orders: bishop, priest, or deacon. Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches do not permit the ordination of women to these orders, though there is some dissent, whereas many Anglican churches began doing so in the late twentieth century. In denominations that do not have priestly orders, such as most Protestant denominations, ordination is understood more generally as the acceptance of a person for pastoral work, such as appointment as a minister of religion or a pastor. Ordination of women to such roles became common among Protestants by the middle of the twentieth century.

I am not particularly wedded to my form of words. I just think that there should be some summary in the lead section, so that the main facts are above the fold.

'office' has different theological meanings. In Anglicanism it usually means a service. In some forms of Christianity, ordination is to an 'order', and in others it is not much more than an endorsement of suitability for a job.

I don't see the pov in "before the 20th century no one ordained women, but then some protestants started and now progress is as such that ordination is common among protestants." - it seems to me to stick closely to to the article body. However - perhaps that is my pov speaking. How would you write it? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing about the intro is that I think there are two different points weaved together. One is the definition of “ordination”, which has different forms in different groups. The other is whether or not the groups ordain women. Once we start talking about history we toss in a third theme, and the intro seems confused. I like the mentioning of history, but I think we need to organize it better. I am not sure if there is a pov in that sentence or not, but lets take two example sentences and see:

Until the 20th century, no Christian churches ordained women. In the 20th century, many protestants started to ordain women. Catholics and Orthodox do not permit women to be ordained. Now, it is common for protestants to ordain women.

Before the 20th century, ordination of women had not been practiced in the West since paganism was practiced. At the beginning of the 20th century, some protestant groups began to do so, although Catholics and Orthodox continued the ancient Jewish practice of only ordaining men. Now, however, a great many protestants do allow women to be ordained.

Notice how both are factually correct. However, in the way they are framed, the first one sounds to me like ordaining women is a natural progression, with protestants leading the way and orthodox dragging their feet (especially if we use the word "roles"). The second sounds like protestants are backsliding into long vanquished errors, while orthodox hold the fort, increasingly alone. Thus, I think we need to tread slowly here when discussing the historical dimension of the matter. I'll post a suggested rewrite when I have more time to think on it. I think we need to tease out the history, definition of ordination, and current practice into distinct sections. In this regard, the history is the trickiest. Btw, I thank you for your contributions and input, I am sure the article will be better because of it. Lostcaesar 09:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I personally don't view progress as always a good thing, I missed that inference in my proposal. The fact remains that the Protestant ordination of women began in significant numbers in the 20th century, and gradually increased (both in numbers of women and numbers of churches permitting it) until today. The trend is an interesting fact, but we must find a way of stating it in a way that does not appear to criticize conservatives. Many churches, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, have taken a principled stand against it. If we omit mentioning that it is a new phenomenon, again we offend 'conservatives', and if we omit it altogether, we offend 'progressives'. I await your suggestion --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, what you wish to do is include historical information that is at present absent from the introduction. I think this material should be added in its own paragraph. The important historical points to consider are as follows (as best as I can sketch it out): in antiquity, priestesses existed in all the religions of the Greco-Roman world except Judaism. Catholicism-Orthodoxy rejected ordaining women to the priesthood unto today. With the exception of certain obscure medieval heretical movements, the thought of ordaining women was not entertained until the Reformation, and even then it was rejected by all but the most extreme reformers. The Unitarian Church, which has some claims to tracing itself to these early reformation radicals, has perhaps the oldest tradition of ordaining women. In the nineteenth century, more mainstream reformed churches (like some Methodists and maybe Presbyterians) began ordaining women, and in the twentieth century this continued in more mainstream reformed churches like Lutheran and Anglican communities. Central to this entire historical process is the changing idea of priesthood, which always preceded any movements to ordain women. This last fact makes me nervous when introducing history to the intro. Can we expect, without any explanation, for readers to understand that the Cathar perfecti class was completely different, theologically and in practice, from Orthodox priesthood (also causing them to practice ritual priest-class-oriented suicide)? Or that the Unitarian radical theology of the Reformation completely altered the theological notion of a priesthood such that it was, in principle, possible for women to be ordained (whereas the mainstream Reformed notion of priesthood, though changed, was done in a way that did not permit the inclusion of women – that theological change would only occur centuries later). See, its all very difficult to express on merely a linear historical chronology. I think it can be done, but we must have much care. Anyway, that is the basic historical sketch. It is thematically centred on the consistency of Orthodoxy stretching back to Judaism, with the movements to ordain women representing a historical break with this continuity preceded by theological ingenuity / radicalism. Lostcaesar 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is not that complicated. Someone reading the introduction simply wants to know if women in a particular religion are ordained, and if so, whether the article will tell them the history; and if not, why not. It is simple for Orthodoxy and Catholicism - the theology hasn't changed, the ecclesiology hasn't changed, and the practice hasn't changed. Anglo-Catholics are in the same tradition as other Catholics (with some exceptions that cause a great deal of heartache but can be dealt with elsewhere.)

Protestant denominations are different, (as is the office of ordination and the role of a priest or minister for a protestant, not to mention the priesthood of all believers) but the body of the article doesn't deal with the historical complexity, so we don't have the freedom to deal with it in the lead section either.

I don't feel we need to talk about pagan priests or Jewish priests in the Christian part of the introduction. It will be complex enough to broach the differences between evangelical, liberal and unitarian protestants, but even that is not yet mentioned in the body of the article. Anyway, I am too tired to have another attempt tonight. Perhaps someone else is more bold than you or I. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro is a summary of the article. If the article does not discuss the history, then the intro shouldn’t. It sounds like the entire matter is best left alone. Also, I don’t think we could really omit much of the sketch above – some perhaps, but the mentioning of Judaism’s male priesthood as a contrast to paganism, and its link to orthodox Christianity, is difficult to avoid since the intro mentions both Judaism and orthodoxy. There might be a way, in a Protestant section, to mention that mainstream reformed protestants started ordaining women in the early / mid-twentieth century. Lostcaesar 08:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic ordination of female deacons

The article doesn't clearly distinguish between the Catholic position on the priestly ordination of women, which is prohibited by divine law, and the ordination of women as deacons, which is prohibited by canon law (and so may one day change). Any suggestions on how to reorganize the article to better make this distinction? -- Cat Whisperer 18:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this article, but I would suggest that a couple of sentences in the first paragraph of 'Doctrinal position' would introduce your material. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I will just go and give it a try. What's the worst that could happen??? -- Cat Whisperer 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a try, but I still need somewhere to add the material on deaconesses directly. Currently, this is only discussed in the "Dissenting Position", even though this is a legitimate matter for disagreement among Catholics. How do you feel about moving that material to a new section on deaconesses? -- Cat Whisperer 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go add my new material in a new subsection, but not move any existing material for now. -- Cat Whisperer 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now I'm going to move the reference to Nicaea to the new section, since the first subsection is pretty much all about priests. -- Cat Whisperer 23:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Might as well be bold and finish it off. -- Cat Whisperer 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited some of these additions. Thank you for the work on this article; I think those additions were a good improvement. I only changed some phrasing and moved a few sentences around to better organize the passage. Also, I added some links and quotes, which I thought best considering the material at hand. I did, however, removed the passage about the American canon law society. We lead the section with a quote from Canon Law; I don't think the American societies recent opinion is relevant enough to the worldwide matter, addressed already bt the Canon Law reference. I am willing to be outvoted on this if others disagree, but it would be unreasonable to unclude the opinion of every canon law society of every country with Catholics at present, and the American-centric perspective is not really relevant enough alone. Lostcaesar 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements! There is only one that I think needs to be changed (see below). As for the canon law material, I would vote to add it for the following reasons:

The opening canon law reference is a primary source, subject to interpretation and/or mis-interpretation, and could be construed as original research. The CLSA reference is a secondary source, containing a thorough analysis of not only that single canon, but of all the applicable canon law in a unified synthesis.
The CLSA report is not just some American opinion, but is currently the most comprehensive canonical study on the matter of ordaning women to the permanent diaconate that has been conducted under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which applies not only to the U.S., but the entire Latin Rite worldwide. If there are other canonical studies (whether from other canon law societies or from canon law faculties) that you have in mind, I don't see any problem in including them. I am not aware of any myself.

Is the a formal mechanism for conducting a vote here on Wikipedia? I'm new, so I don't know how this is done.

Discussion of the change: "deaconess, however, should not be considered as a female deacon (in the sense of having received ordination)". Whether deaconesses received ordination or not is covered correctly in the next paragraph. To bluntly state here that they have not is incorrect. The uncontested difference between historical deaconesses and modern-day proposals for creation of a female permanent diaconate lies in their role: No one believes that historical deaconesses delivered homilies during Mass, but this is one suggestion that has been made for modern-day female deacons. -- Cat Whisperer 02:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The opening reference is not just to the Code of Canon Law, but to the Catechism section 1577, which is a secondary source. The article you referenced is from 1995 – the Catechism was first written in 1992 and updated in 1997, hence the opinions of the American Canon Law society were nicely sandwiched between publications. Hence there was an opportunity for the greater church to consider the recommendations and elect to include them or not. As for the quote on deaconesses, I merely recycled your sentence, so I don’t follow why you now object to it. Am I mistaken? Lostcaesar 12:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to reword the first paragraph to better explain the situation, and to provide an opportunity to reference the CLSA report so that people who read the article will have that reference in case they want to do further research. Take a look and tell me what you think. -- Cat Whisperer 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good; I made a slight revision only. Lostcaesar 08:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made some edits. Some comments on my changes:

Nobody claims the title of "deaconess" implied ordination (which would mean that all deaconesses received ordination), so I reworded the sentence to correctly describe the situation.
This isn't really a matter of debate, but of what actually happened historically, so I changed the word "debate" accordingly.
Changing the word "possibility" to "theory" lost a subtle but important point, which I guess was too subtle, so I made it explicit.

Okay, tag, you're it. -- Cat Whisperer 14:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cat, the distinction is mistaken.

Divine law makes the ordination of women impossible and any attempt invalid.
What is not against divine law is the appointment of women to the position of a deaconess, a position not part of the clergy and not transferred via ordination, as still practiced in the Eastern Churches. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Str! Thanks for the input; I was thinking only Lostcaesar and I cared about this section. However, my understanding is different than yours. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis specifically refers to priestly ordination of women, and the note on Inter Insigniores explicitly points out that the situation for deaconesses is a matter for further investigation. Do you have any sources that say otherwise? -- Cat Whisperer 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Catholic) Women leading communion service

Thanks for the edits on this topic, everyone! My writing isn't always the most precise, and I always appreciate the help. However, the most important point that I was trying to make was completely lost in the edit process, so I'm going to try again, in greater detail. As usual, please feel free to improve again on what I've done.

From Policies and Procedures for Lay Leaders of Prayer for the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings:

5.“The person who leads the community at a Sunday celebration in the absence of a priest, whether a deacon or a layperson, is called the leader.” (Gathered in Steadfast Faith, Bishop’s Committee on the Liturgy, USCC 1991, “Specific norms” #55, A)

The phraseology "participate in the leadership" just obscures this point, that there is one person who is the leader, and this person can be female.

10. “The preaching of a homily is part of most liturgical rites and is, by its very definition, reserved to a priest or a deacon. However, the bishop may delegate a layperson who is properly trained to explain the Word of God at Sunday celebrations in the absence of a priest or a deacon and at other specific occasions. The pastor (or pastoral administrator) may provide a text for the leader to read, or if the bishop has authorized the leader to preach, the minister preaches in his or her own words. It is essential that when the leader is to preach, the text should be prepared well in advance.

This is the key point that was lost completely. -- Cat Whisperer 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A document relevant to the diocese of Grand Falls-Billings is inappropriate in such a context, I think. All you could really say is, “in the diocese of Grand Falls-Billings, a female leader can preach…”, and that doesn’t really seem relevant to the entire Church. We need a better document. Do you have a better source? Also, do you have a Latin text of the directory of Sunday Celebrations in the absence of a priest? I would like to see it, since the word lead has become so central to the matter. Whatever the case, I don't see the word "lead" used in the context the article currently represents in the source given (excluding the Grand Falls-Billings diocese). Lostcaesar 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "Gathered in Steadfast Faith" covers the entire United States, as it was written by the USCCB Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy. Second of all, I didn't use the word "lead", I used the phrase "be the leader". Logically, this is correct provided that (1) there is a role called the "leader", and (2) that a woman can fill that role. I have established both of these criteria via my sources. Do you have any sources that say otherwise?

Because of these misunderstandings, I have reverted your revert. Also, I contributed a lot of material besides the one question you raise. If you have problems with that other material, please indicate what those problems are so I can address them. If you only have a problem with the "be the leader" phrase, please don't revert all my other contributions. Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer 12:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to go back and annotate the section in question with the appropriate sources. I think this matter should be settled based on sources, not on anyone's personal opinion. -- Cat Whisperer 12:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a Latin version of the Directory online. Here is a webpage with many references. Regarding "Gathered in Steadfast Faith", it has:

“

Gathered in Steadfast Faith. Statement on Sunday Worship in the Absence of a Priest (Washington, DC: USCC, 1991). Text (based on Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest , the 1988 document from the Congregation for Divine Worship) discussed and amended by the full membership of the NCCB at their plenary meeting in November, 1989-and subsequently approved for publication by the NCCB Administrative Committee on March 20, 1990. (ISBN 1555863612)

”

-- Cat Whisperer 12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imparting blessings

Hello, Musical Linguist! Thanks for joining the fray. I've added back the "impart blessings" phrase with the official USCCB source: "A layperson, delegated by the bishop, may impart any of the blessings given in the Book of Blessings that are not reserved to a bishop, a priest, or a deacon." I will look up your reference and try to add it in. In general, I think that properly discussing the issue is better than just deleting material without saying anything. -- Cat Whisperer 13:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Cat Whisperer. I would say that for someone trying to finish two 6000-word assignments by Thursday evening, my edit summary was a pretty good substitute for a discussion. In any case, I don't think the article will suffer greatly for NOT having that the disputed statement that women can "impart blessings" during the next few days while I try to finish my two papers, especially since it has a list of other things they can do. I only deleted two words — something that can normally be done without the obligation to write a paragraph in the discussion page. Very briefly, I'll just say that:

"Impart" means "give", and unordained people can not give a liturgical blessing. In the absence of an ordained minister, they can ask God to bless the whole congregation (including themselves), but when they do that, they are not actually conferring the blessing. If you said something very unkind, and I said, "May God forgive you for saying that", my words would not be "imparting" absolution, even though they'd be close enough to what the priest says in the sacrament of penance ("May God give you pardon and peace").
As far as I know, and contrary to what you say, the document you quote is not from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, but from the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy. The BCL is just a committee (with some lay people on it); it doesn't have any particular authority, and it certainly can't be used to back up a statement that something is allowed, in contradiction to a Vatican document.
Even if the document came from the entire bishops' conference, it would not have the authority to permit something that Rome prohibits, unless Rome specifically allowed an exception in that area to the general rule.
I don't know whether the BCL document is actually trying to permit something that Rome does not permit, or is just using sloppy language (saying "impart" instead of "request"). But in any case, the fact that bishops have been known to allow (or even to do) things which they did not have the authority to allow or do (for example, eulogies at funerals, the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion when there isn't a sufficient shortage of priests to justify it (according to the Vatican documents), inclusive language translations of the Scriptures, washing of women's feet on Holy Thursday, etc. etc.) does not mean that a Wikipedia article should state as a fact that these things are allowed. If there were a sign up in a park saying "do not walk on the grass", and a few individual fathers ignored this and allowed their children to walk on the grass, then even though fathers have authority over their children, it would not be proper for a Wikipedia article on that park to state that walking on the grass is allowed.
If the BCL had the authority to allow a woman to impart the blessing (and they don't), it would be irrelevant outside of the United States. Wikipedia should not take an American deviation from what the Vatican has lays down as if it applies to the Universal Church.

Anyway, I don't want to get too deeply into the discussion until I finish my papers. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, AnnH! First of all, I would like to apologize for my very poor wording of my comment. Re-reading it now, I can see exactly how it says something different than what I meant. What I was actually trying to say was that if there is information about blessings that is relevant to the article, and that if the phrase "imparting blessing" doesn't convey that information correctly, then it would be better (in terms of improving the article) to reword the phrase to correctly convey the information, rather than to delete all mention of blessings altogether. (Now you can see why I need help with my writing!) Certainly, your edit summary was completely sufficient, and I used it to attempt to reword the phrase in question.

Anyway, I am trying to obtain a complete copy of "Gathered in Steadfast Faith" via Inter Library Loan, in order to obtain more information on this subject. Good luck with your papers! -- Cat Whisperer 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

We have no need of committee documents from one country when we have the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, which applies authoritatively to the entire RCC. American Catholics only constitute 60 million of the 1.1 billion Catholics, and activities within the American church cannot therefore be treated as normative for the entire RCC, nor can derivative texts they produce trump the original Vatican documents. Subtle rewordings and local interpretations of official documents are inappropriate here in my view. I will instead reword and re-reference the document based on the official Vatican text. Lostcaesar 08:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, some things have been dropped in this process. I will add them back, referencing the Vatican document.

Also, when I get a copy of "Gathered in Steadfast Love", I will create another article specific to the U.S. Church. I don't think the practices of (at least) 60 million Catholics are so insignificant as to not deserve mention somewhere in Wikipedia. I don't know where people get this idea that the U.S. Church isn't part of of the entire Catholic Church. -- Cat Whisperer 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An article on American Catholic liturgy sounds like a good idea to me. I am not arguing that the American church is not part of the RCC – rather, what I mean to express is that documents produced by and for the American church cannot be considered or treated as normative for the RCC. (Personally, I am not even sure how normative that interpretation of the text is for the American church, based on my experiences with American liturgy, but that is an aside.) Lostcaesar 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! That's the nice thing about Wikipedia -- lots of space for all sorts of articles. -- Cat Whisperer 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changes

I made the following changes. Since the view expressed is not merely canon law but also from the Catechism, I reworded the lead sentence to reflect this and reintroduced the word "official".
Notice that the last line of the paragraph still needs a citation, and perhaps ought to go until it has one, or perhaps it should be moved to the dissenting position – for now I left it there.
I added some links to philosophical terms.
Since the text quoted mentioned that certain medieval theologians pondered the matter of ordination of female deacons in antiquity, I thought it necessary to also state, from the same article, the view that this entire approach is exceedingly rare in the historical sources. If we are to quote from a source, we should properly represent its views. So, we either abandon both quotes or go with both, I think.
I used the official text, "Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest", removing the derivative and locally oriented "Gathered in Steadfast Love", and imitated the language or directly quoted from the text. This is much more precise now.
I removed the line about women "preaching in church" and fundamentalist protestant exegesis, since it didn't seem in keeping with the above information in the paragraph, and was unreferenced. Lostcaesar 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Per our high standards regarding referencing in this section, I have removed the sentence regarding women leading the Rosary, as no one has added an official Vatican reference that deals with the entire Church. -- Cat Whisperer 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the first sentence, because the temporal adverb from the old sentence was completely dropped. It still seems rather odd to me to introduce the "Doctrinal" Position section with a statement not of doctrine but of current discipline, but I will leave the sentence in place. -- Cat Whisperer 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with finding a reference to the last line is that the last two lines misstate the very complicated situation, but it's hard to figure out how to correct them without introducing a whole new paragraph on the matter. --Cat Whisperer 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think every sentence needs a reference, but I think that sentence is a bit problematic because it expresses a certain judgement about doctrine, and in cases of judgement it is best to express who the judge is (and to use a judge with the relevance and authority necessary). Also, I don't think the section needs it. The entire article is about women's ordination, and people can compare the Catholic and fundamentalist positions easily enough just by reading the sections. As for the use of the word "current", I thank you for reintroducing this; I did not mean to drop it. I will say, however, that it seems the article does discuss doctrine rather than discipline (at least, as you have clarified nicely, in regards to the episcopate and the presbyterate). Lostcaesar 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've put the paragraph-long explanation in the "Dissenting Position" section. Based on past experience, I'm going to let everyone delete all the parts they don't like before I spend hours trying to track down all the sources and citations. I will add them when everyone is in agreement on the text itself. -- Cat Whisperer 04:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've redone the end of the first paragraph in "Doctrinal Position" based on my edit above. I've reworded "could not be doubted" to "must be accepted", because the latter phrase is the one that is applicable to secondary objects of infallibility. -- Cat Whisperer 04:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between "could not be doubted" and a belief that "must be accepted" - sounds like the same thing to me. Also, "secondary objects of infallibility" - what is that? Has such language been used in a Church document? Lostcaesar 09:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Could not be doubted" is the same as "must be believed". "Accepted" is one level below "believed". It is possible for someone with doubts to nonetheless accept a given teaching. For a description of primary and secondary objects of infallibility, see [2]. As to whether the Church has ever used this standard dogmatic theological terminology, I don't know. In the link I gave, they are referred to as "first paragraph" (see n. 5) and "second paragraph" (see n. 6) truths. -- Cat Whisperer 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. However, I am more confused now. A brief reading of the sections in question seem to state that there is no ultimately ranking (primary and secondary) between infallible teachings . The word secondary does not appear in the document. The believer is "required to know and to profess” various teachings, expressed in two paragraphs differentiated by their historical development, not their dogmatic nature. Concerning what appears in the “second paragraph”, the document states: “Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith.” So, to me, it sounds like they are the same in regards to their dogmatic nature and requirement of belief.

Also, I do not see how “accept” is one level below “belief”, when what we are talking about are: beliefs. “Accepting a belief” and “believing” are, it seems to me, the same – no? Could you perhaps give an example of a belief that can be accepted whilst being doubted? Lostcaesar 11:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put the relevant phrase of your quote above in bold. These categories are not the same, but a truth can be "promoted" (in my words) from secondary to primary over the course of time. "Above" and "below" are also my words. According to the new canon law described by the link, primary objects of infallibility (standard dogmatic terminology) are dogma (c. 750 §1), and doubting them is heresy (c. 751), punishable by automatic excommunication (c. 1364 §1). On the other hand, secondary objects of infallibility are not dogma, and rejecing/failing to accept them (c. 750 §2) is punishable by a "just penalty" (c. 1371.1).

Paragraph 8 of the link talks about the differences (and also the similarities) in the nature of the assent that is required for the two categories, e.g.: "The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith". In other words, Catholics need to believe the primary objects of infallibility (in my words, to know in their hearts that they are true). However, regarding the secondary objects of infallibility, Catholics can accept that the Holy Spirit would not let the Church infallibly teach error, even if they personally do not possess the gift of faith sufficient to believe the truth in their hearts. Paragraph 11 gives examples of truths taught by the Church at each level. -- Cat Whisperer 12:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edits, the phrase "infallibly proclaimed by the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff" is incorrect in this context, as it implies that Ordinatio Sacredotalis is ex cathedra, when the exact opposite is true. Also, some of the new introduced material explains the doctrinal position rather than the dissenting position, so I'm moved it to that section. -- Cat Whisperer 17:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In editing the Dissenting Position section, I found several more changes that made the text no longer faithfully represent the actual referenced material, so I had to correct them back. For example, I changed "have argued that this cannot apply to point (2)" back to "have questioned how this can apply to point (2)", because Fr. Francis Sullivan [3] is not a dissenting theologian who argues against the Magisterium, but a faithful and orthodox theologian (e.g., the doctoral advisor of Cardinal Levada) who can't figure out the logic behind the current "infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium" craze. He writes:

“

The question that remains is whether it is a clearly established fact that the bishops of the Catholic Church are as convinced by those reasons [against women priests] as Pope John Paul evidently is, and that, in exercising their proper role as judges and teachers of the faith, they have been unanimous in teaching that the exclusion of women from ordination to the priesthood is a divinely revealed truth to which all Catholics are obliged to give a definitive assent of faith. Unless this is manifestly the case, I do not see how it can be certain that this doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

”

Notice the complete absence of "arguing against" the magisterium. -- Cat Whisperer 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding other changes I made: "without itself claiming the gift of infallibility" -> "without itself being ex cathedra", because not even the teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption actually "claim" the gift of infallibility. A teaching doesn't have to say it is ex cathedra in order to be ex cathedra. And since this is an argument from dogmatic theology, I think it is appropriate to use the precise dogmatic terminology.

"Concerning this point" -> "These dogmatic theologians find it especially problematic that, concerning this point": I've reintroduced the "problematic" adjective, this time in a subjective context (some people find it problematic), which is different from the previous objective context (that it was problematic). -- Cat Whisperer 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "current" by Musical Linguist

Musical Linguist,

The word "current" may be POV, but merely deleting the word results in a very misleading sentence, as it does not express unchangeable Church doctrine, but merely changeable Church discipline. So when the phrase "official position" is used in the first sentence of the "Doctrinal Position" section, it creates the strong impression that it is expressing doctrine, which it clearly is not. Canon law can change, and the canon law quoted in the first sentence is the canon law that is currently in effect. It was not always so in the past, as the section with deaconesses clearly shows. -- Cat Whisperer 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not a question of discipline, but of doctrine. The very fact that the word "validly" is used, combined with the fact that it is taught in the Catechism, and not just stated in the Code of Canon Law, is evidence of that. Just because something is stated in the Code of Canon Law doesn't mean that it's stated only there, and that it is not regarded as an actual teaching (i.e. doctrine). Canon law can change only if the law is not restating something that is an official teaching. For example, canon law says not just that only a male can validly receive the sacrament of ordination, but also that only a baptized male can validly receive that sacrament. So, it's making a law that a bishop must not ordain someone who has not been baptized, but that law can't change. If a bishop goes through the motions (laying on of hands, correct words) of "ordaining" a man who hasn't been baptized, nothing will actually happen. When the man "says Mass", it won't be a real Mass: the bread and wine will still be bread and wine.

Note that I'm just stating what the teaching of the Church is. I don't want to start a debate on whether or not the Church is right, as Wikipedia talk pages are meant to be used for discussing how to improve an article. And this teaching most certainly is a doctrine. (I make no statement as to whether or not the doctrine is true; and neither should Wikipedia.) If you think that the Church presents it as just a question of discipline, I strongly recommend you read Section 4 of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

As for deaconesses, the word means one who "serves" or "ministers". Canon law can change in the sense of allowing women to do things that do not require the powers that come with Holy Orders, or of forbidding them to do such things. Today, some women within the Catholic Church are called "ministers of the Eucharist", although they are more correctly called "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion". These women (and, indeed, men) are sometimes commissioned at a special liturgical ceremony, where they might get a special blessing from the bishop. It doesn't mean that people should argue in four hundred years from now that "women were ministers" and "the word minister is used for a priest", therefore there is proof that women received the sacrament of Holy Orders in the late twentieth century, with the approval of the Vatican. So no, I don't accept that the section on deaconesses "clearly shows" that the official doctrine that women can't validly receive Holy Orders (whether that doctrine is true or not) was different in the past. If the section indicates that, it will have to be rewritten. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the appropriate discussion here is of what the Church actually teaches. So our disagreement truly relates to what the Church teaching is, without any consideration of what it should be. Your statement, "The very fact that the word 'validly' is used, combined with the fact that it is taught in the Catechism, and not just stated in the Code of Canon Law, is evidence of that," shows two common misunderstandings that are contributing to our problem here.

Firstly, a canon law can make a sacrament invalid (i.e., null and void) or illicit (i.e., sinful, but still valid). Also, a canon law can have divine (i.e., doctrinal) origin, or eccleastical (i.e., disciplinary) origin. These two dimensions are independent of each other, so jumping to the conclusion that a canon law expresses a doctrine merely because it makes a sacrament invalid is quite illogical. The most famous example of this is the canonical form of marriage, lack of which causes the invalidity of the (sacrament of) marriage, but which is a purely disciplinary, eccleastical law which was first enacted by the Council of Trent, and which could be reversed at any time. Several other diriment (i.e., invalidating) impediments in canon law are from changeable eccleastical law, e.g., most consanguinity, spiritual relationship, etc.

Secondly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains both doctrine and discipline, freely intermixed without much in the way of distinction. For example, CCC 1457 states:

“

According to the Church's command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year." Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession. Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.

”

The footnote for the last sentence is to canon 914, and expresses a purely disciplinary rule that dates to the mid-1970's. Not a single bit of doctrine is involved. Note that the Catechism here follows the same editorial style as it does in CCC 1577, i.e., just a bald restatement of canon law. -- Cat Whisperer 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that the Catechism does mention things that are related to discipline, and also that the Code of Canon Law mentions things that are doctrinal. However, the wording in the Catechism, combined with the language used in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis makes it clear that this is not just a "rule" (like, for example, saying that women may not be included in the Holy Thursday footwashing ceremony, or that extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not distribute Holy Communion outside of a case of genuine necessity). You haven't explained how you can possibly think from reading Section 4 of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that the Pope was just issuing a disciplinary document.

You say Canon Law can make a sacrament valid or invalid. Not necessarily. A bishop is "breaking a rule", or "disobeying the Church" if he consecrates another bishop without papal approval, or if he "ordains" a woman. However, the consecration of Richard Williamson, according to the Church, was illicit, but valid, while the ordination of Sinéad O'Connor was illicit and invalid. If a priest goes to someone's house, wearing ordinary clothes, sits round the table in the dining room with a group of other people, and proceeds to say Mass, using bread made from wheat flour and water, and grape wine, then he is certainly disobeying the Church, but the Mass is valid. If he says Mass in his proper garments, with the correct words, at the altar inside a church, and uses potato cakes and orange juice, then the Mass is not valid. Canon law can't change that. Because the Church has the authority to change rules about what a priest should wear when he's saying Mass, it's just a rule, and it may be sinful to break it (other than in extreme cases such as when a priest is in prison), but breaking it won't affect the valididy. However, in the unlikely (actually, impossible) case of Canon Law stating, with papal approval, that potato cakes and orange juice can be used for Mass, the Mass would not become valid.

Are there cases where a change in canon law could affect validity of sacrament? Very rarely, and not in cases similar to the ordination of women. One case could be the issue of priests having jurisdiction when hearing confessions. If I'm not mistaken, the priest, according to the 1917 code, only had automatic jurisdiction in his own parish, and had to have permission from the bishop if he wanted to hear confessions in another city. Under the current law, if he has faculties in one area, he can be assumed to have them in other areas, unless they are explicitly denied to him. And even under the old law, a priest could give valid absolution to a dying penitent outside of his own parish. A layman could not give valid absolution to any penitent. Canon law could change the rules about jurisdiction, but couldn't change the requirement that for valid absolution, the penitent has to be sorry for his sins and intend to try to give them up. Since in matrimony, the couple confer the sacrament on each other, they must, if Catholic, intend to go through a Catholic marriage. You'll note that the Catholic Church considers the marriage of two baptized Protestants to be valid and sacramental even if they don't follow the "rules" for a Catholic marriage. Canon Law could conceivably change some day, to allow Catholics to marry in a registry office without special permission, but it couldn't change to allow two males or two females or two previously-married (and not widowed) Catholics to marry each other.

The Church teaches that women cannot be ordained. People can argue that what the Church teaches is wrong, but it remains a fact that the Church does teach it. Although the Church does not allow women to have their feet washed on Holy Thurdsay, I would never say that the Church "teaches" that women can't be included in that ceremony. Another thing is that while the Church teaches that only a baptized male may be ordained, it would still be highly illicit to ordain a baptized male infant. Nevertheless, if that happened, the little boy would truly be a priest. If an adult male who was not validly baptized goes through an ordination ceremony, the ordination won't "take", and his subsequent masses will all be invalid. That's because we're dealing with a doctrine and not merely a discipline.

So, I stand 100% by what I said yesterday. This is a doctrine. Whether it's true or not is not a matter for discussion on Wikipedia. But, given the extremely strong wording in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, given the fact that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that this "teaching . . . is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith", it's very puzzling to see you editing the article to put in things about the "current", "not necessarily doctrinal" "discipline". It is completely misleading to give the impression in the article that we're dealing here with a discipline. AnnH ♫ 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be no surprise but I agree eith Musical Linguist. To say this is "current" doctrine implies its changeability, while the ommission of that word does imply nothing. Hence, we should go for the neutral wording, the one without "current". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be precise, my position is that the Church's canon law prohibition against the ordination of women is doctrinal in regard to priestly and episcopal ordination, and not doctrinal in regard to ordination to the diaconate. But I don't really see any point in debating your original research versus my original research any further. Here is a statement from a secondary source (Canonical Implications of Ordaining Women to the Permanent Diaconate) that I would like to be incorporated into the article to clear up the mistaken impression left by the current article. Since nobody else seems to like how I word things, I'll give someone else the chance to word it their way first:

“

Canon 1024 restates the long-standing practice of the Roman Catholic Church which restricts sacramental ordination to baptized males. The canon stipulates that the qualification affects the validity of the ordination and not simply its legitimacy or lawfulness.

Notwithstanding the relative consistency (some historical exceptions have been examined above with regard to the ordination of women to the diaconate) and the long duration of this restriction, the limitation of diaconal ordination to males is a "merely ecclesiastical law" (c. 11). Its modification is within the authority of the Church.

”

-- Cat Whisperer 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We already discussed the reasons why that source is not applicable. In my view, the lead sentence is clear that it applies to the priesthood and episcopate. There is a legnthy discussion of the deaconate already. Lostcaesar 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you agree with me that it applies only to the priesthood and episcopate, I've added that clarification to the text, so that it truly is clear to everyone. If anyone has any other sources that they would like to contribute, that would be great. However, Wikipedia is not the place to impose one's original research on an article. -- Cat Whisperer 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added what I consider to be a very fair and balanced statement of the Church's actual teaching as regards the doctrine relating to male-only ordination. I believe this clarification is necessary, because the first sentence in the "Doctrinal Position" section contains both doctrinal and non-doctrinal elements, and without such a clarification the article would mislead a large number of readers into believing that the current canon law is doctrinal even as regards ordination to the diaconate. If anyone agrees with this conclusion, but doesn't like the specific text I have added, I would appreciate it if you would work with the text to make it acceptable. If anyone disagrees with this conclusion, I would appreciate it if you would provide an actual source to the contrary. Please note that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis relates only to priestly ordination (hence the title "On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone"), and that the CLSA report already takes Ordinatio Sacerdotalis into account. I just don't see any point in further debating everyone's original reserach on this. Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

We have three lutheran women as bishops (Wartenberg-Potter, Jepsen, Kässmann) We have a leading bishop of the methodist as woman (Marianne Wenner) We have a leading person of the baptist as woman (Regina Class)

[edit] Examples of Other Church Practice, possible bias

I wanted to call to attention some possible bias in this section. With one except, only Churches that ordain women are mentioned. However, many groups do not ordain women. A specific example, it is mentioned that the Baptist Church in Germany ordains women, but the Southern Baptist Convention policy against female ministers is not mentioned. I think we should work to include a broader examples of views here. Lostcaesar 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archbishops

If the ordination of women as bishops in the UK proceeds, and the situation of the two Archbishops marrying each other arises, who would perform the ceremony?

Can someone here sufficiently knowledgeable please write an introduction to Women as theological figures (and crossover information here as appropriate)

Can someone archive part of this talk page please.

Jackiespeel 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women Ordained in the Presbyterian Church

According to http://www.pcusa.org/women/ordination/

In 1906 in the UPCNA women were admitted to ordination as deacons.

In 1930 in the PCUSA women were admitted to ordination as ruling elders.

In 1955 the General Assembly of the PCUSA voted to approve the ordination of women to the office of Word and Sacrament. It was approved by the presbyteries and in 1956 the first woman was ordained in the tradition that is now the PC(USA).

Perhaps this can be added to the article. Dawn22 06:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women and Catholic hierarchy

I recall reading "somewhere" that women were ordained as Catholic priests under exceptional circumstances where the church was being persecuted? Any more information? Jackiespeel 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions Ludmila Javorová. Is that what you are referring to? -- Cat Whisperer 19:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baptist churches and ordination

The section that says that the Southern Baptist Convention does not ordain women is misleading. Properly speaking, the Southern Baptist Convention, along with other Baptist organizations, doesn't ordain people at all, men or women. Baptist church government is congregational, which means that local congregations, not a denominational structure, ordain individuals as they see fit.

With regards to the topic at hand the SBC is certainly opposed to women's ordination, but it cannot, ecclesiastically speaking, prohibit its member churches from ordaining whom they please, because each congregation is autonomous.

Likewise the national Baptist groups that have been more supportive of women's ordination cannot compel their local churches to ordain women.

This might sound like it's splitting hairs but theologically it's quite an important distinction to make. aliceinlampyland (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

test —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliceinlampyland (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Greece

I am questioning this statement, "On October 8, 2004, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece voted for a restricted restoration of the female diaconate". It is sourced only to an American Catholic magazine. While I don't question the integrity of the magazine, it seems dubious to use it as the only source for an assertion about the affairs of the Orthodox Church of Greece. I can find no mention of this vote on the official site of the Church of Greece (www.ecclesia.gr), nor can I find any mention in any Orthodox publication or website. The only mentions I can find on the web also cite or copy the same material cited here. For now I'm marking this with an "unreliable source?" tag. Better sourcing would be much appreciated! Mrhsj (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Google search of Church of Greece website [4]

Statement from the Holy Synod, October 8, 2004 [5]

Independent reference to vote, with summary translation [6]

-- Cat Whisperer (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't read the Greek pages (automatic translators completely choke) but they convince me that something of the sort is there. The full quote in the third is very helpful. Used that to make the statement more precise, and added it as source. Removed credibility tag. Thank you. Mrhsj (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excommunication

I added this new decreed: The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued and published on May 29, 2008, in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, a decree signed by Cardinal William Levada, on the existing ban on women priests by clarifying that women priests and the bishops who ordain them would be excommunicated "latae sententiae".reuters.com, Vatican says will excommunicate women priests edition.cnn.com, Vatican sends threat over women priests --Florentino floro (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. (yawn) Nothing particularly new here. 68.32.48.59 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait - "latae sententiae" means they've gotten tired of swinging the banhammer at people, so they'll say the banhammer will swing itself. LOL... like that'll deter anyone, or cause anyone to consider themselves excommunicated, either. 68.32.48.59 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)