The Vatican And Its Left-Wing Critics

[scottycelt]

Ah, so you contradict yourself immediately! You can add something to what you've already said!

But that was an entirely different point to my previous points to which indeed I had nothing to add, ahinton ...

Christ indeed happened to choose male disciples ...

Thank you, ahinton ...

but He did only select 12 of them! As you quite rightly observe, however, He "certainly couldn't be accused of being anti-women and a misogynist"; ergo, he might have chosen a woman or some women had he waned more than 12 or even as part of a group of 12 had there been a woman or women available to fulfil the rôle of disciple as it was understood at the time.

...

No, it doesn't. Why? Because it wasn't and isn't a "tradition" in the first place but a mere coincidence. The Church excludes women from certain rôles - quite a few of them, actually - just because Christ Himself happened not to choose any of them for his disciples? No, scotty, that won't do - not for me, but for Christ.

Whether one calls it 'coincidence' or 'tradition' it is an indisputable fact, ahinton ... ?

And I'm really, really struggling to comprehend the utter enormity of the claim in your last sentence.

Leaving VPO to one side for a moment, if the Catholic Church does not think that women are inferior to men, why is it still so resolute in excluding them from positions of seniority and in ensuring that only mean will ever run the Church?

I know that it may only be the personal opinion of someone from outside the Church, but that Church presents an image of itself that, whatever it may think of women, it's not about to allow them the freedom to serve Christ within it in any capacity other than those sanctioned by the men of the Church, irrespective of their desire, ability or suitability to do so. I realise that you are not a Protestant(!), but what view do you happen to take of the fact that, although CofE still does not allow women to be bishops, it does (unlike your Church) allow them to be priests? - I ask you this not merely to counsel your personal view but to ascertain whether and why you might think that your Church is responding to what you allege to be a "tradition" more effectively and authentically than does the CofE.

The Catholic Church is not the Church of England, ahinton. Unlike your goodself, I have absolutely no problem in understanding that separate organisations may well have separate rules and traditions (or coincidences).

The analogy carries little if any pertinence here. The Catholic Church might well appoint a homosexual bishop, cardinal, archbishop or even pope, provided that it either didn't know (or was prepared to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the fact) that the person concerned was homosexual, as long as he was a male one. As to the SF Gay Men's Chorus, I do not regard its name as seeking to make any kind of point about the comparative vocal abilities of homosexuals but I recognise that its responsibilities are towards its audiences; the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is supposed to be an international religious organisation, membership of which is as open to all as is the espousal of Christian teaching and its rôle is to act as a global (though not exclusive) representative of Christ and his teaching. I continue to harbour deep suspicions of to the possible apprehensiveness of Christ himself when faced with the Catholic Church's highly proscribed and exclusive male-governed treatment of women within its organisation.

I repeat - I do not "oppose" these rules; I think that they are not in the interests of the Church because they are not in the best interests of all women. that's all!

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, ahinton, and I fully support your right to express it!

However, I do challenge your "right" to speak for 'all women'. Can women not do that for themselves? There are millions of women who are active members of the Catholic Church and seem quite happy (or at least willingly accept) its rules. Predictably, there is a small minority within the Church which is pushing for "change' but that has always been the case. Those who find the rules intolerable can always join the Church of England or another religion (or none) of their choice. It's really that simple.

However, away from your deep interest concerning the rules of the Catholic Church, I do find it a bit odd that you appear to be against the former policy of the Vienna Philharmonic but apparently quite relaxed over the the current discriminatory aspect of the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus.

It does seem a teeny-weeny bit illogical on your own inviolable grounds of 'equality' of gender and sexual orientation, don't you think ... ?

[Serial_Apologist]

Not much danger of that, I suspect! - although she did not compose a great deal herself and what she did largely pales before the few works composed by her astonishingly gifted sister - but the names that I arbitrarily cited were, of course, mere illustrative examples rather than anything remotely approaching a comprehensive list!

"Is there such a thing as feminine music? I don't think so. You don't read Shakespeare as a woman or a man, you read him as a human being. I suppose 'masculine' is supposed to mean strong and decisive and 'feminine' weak and charming. But I don't find that necessarily holds true of either sex.

"Obviously all the experiences of one's life, nationality, upbringing, friends, religion and politics affect one's work a well as one's sex. I don't see that there is any specifically feminine music any more than there is homosexual music. Music is distinguished in the end only as good or bad. Being a woman never enters into my conscious thought when I am working. I write as a composer; that is all".

(Elizabeth Lutyens, in British Composers in Interview, Murray Schafer, Faber and Faber, London, 1963, 104)

[amateur51]

However, away from your deep interest concerning the rules of the Catholic Church, I do find it a bit odd that you appear to be against the former policy of the Vienna Philharmonic but apparently quite relaxed over the the current discriminatory aspect of the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus.

It does seem a teeny-weeny bit illogical on your own inviolable grounds of 'equality' of gender and sexual orientation, don't you think ... ?

For your information scotty, Brighton's Gay Men's Choir welcomes heterosexual supporters of the Choirs aims & objectives (and particularly those who can sing in tune ). Perhaps you could check with San Francisco's choir to see if they've done that too - I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear from you again

The position of the Vienna Phil is either laziness or gender discrimination and as such is quite shameful.

[Anna]

Not wishing to divert this fascinating discussion, but only one woman was involved in the Pope's inaugral Mass but the new ArchBishop of Canterbury is to be enthroned by a woman:

The Venerable Sheila Watson, the Archdeacon of Canterbury, one of the most senior female clerics in the Church of England, will perform the first of two inductions in a service to formally recognise the Most Rev Justin Welby as the 105th archbishop at the city’s cathedral on Thursday.

And, completely off-topic. I like Pope Francis. He's friendly, humble like a normal Parish priest after Mass and seems like a breath of fresh air and I hope he'll deal with corruption in the Vatican (obviously the situation of women and gays will remain the same) but I think he's a top bloke.

[amateur51]

And, completely off-topic. I like Pope Francis. He's friendly, humble like a normal Parish priest after Mass and seems like a breath of fresh air and I hope he'll deal with corruption in the Vatican (obviously the situation of women and gays will remain the same) but I think he's a top bloke.

Until recently, didn't we read much the same about Archbishop Keith O'Brien, Anna?

[scottycelt]

For your information scotty, Brighton's Gay Men's Choir welcomes heterosexual supporters of the Choirs aims & objectives (and particularly those who can sing in tune ). Perhaps you could check with San Francisco's choir to see if they've done that too - I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear from you again

The position of the Vienna Phil is either laziness or gender discrimination and as such is quite shameful.

I'm sure the Brighton Gay Men's Choir will accept money from anywhere, amsey ... and so would I!

I think you maybe underestimate the Viennese who know a thing or two about music-making.

It was probably more a question of keeping the musicians' mind on the particular job in hand ... as it were.

A bit like all-boys and all-girls schools ... ?

[amateur51]

I'm sure the Brighton Gay Men's Choir will accept money from anywhere, amsey ... and so would I!

I think you maybe underestimate the Viennese who know a thing or two about music-making.

It was probably more a question of keeping the musicians' mind on the particular job in hand ... as it were.

A bit like all-boys and all-girls schools ... ?

I'm sure you're right about the money but I'm talking about straight men who value the opportunity to sing-along in a gay men's choir wearing at t-shirt that says Brighton Gay men's Chorus.

Capisc?

[scottycelt]

I'm sure you're right about the money but I'm talking about staight men who value the opportunity to sing-along in a gay men's choir wearing at t-shirt that says Brighton Gay men's Chorus.

Capisc?

Good for them, amsey!

There are much worse things printed on t-shirts ...

[ahinton]

But that was an entirely different point to my previous points to which indeed I had nothing to add, ahinton ...

You did not make it sufficiently clear what it was to which you had nothing further to add.

Thank you, ahinton ...

Don't thank me; thank Christ, if you must thank anyone!

[QUOTE=scottycelt;274189] ...
Re-read it if you're unclear, scotty -and if you're still unclear, then please try to be more specific as to what your erm-ing (ermine?!) about.

Whether one calls it 'coincidence' or 'tradition' it is an indisputable fact, ahinton ... ?

It's a fact that the Church denied women access to certain rôles within its officialdom, yes - but a fact is a fact at the time that it's a fact and might change in future, whereas a "tradition" is regarded by some as something immutable, which cannot and must not be made to change.

And I'm really, really struggling to comprehend the utter enormity of the claim in your last sentence.

What claim? Again, please be more specific.

The Catholic Church is not the Church of England, ahinton.

Thank you, soctty.

Unlike your goodself, I have absolutely no problem in understanding that separate organisations may well have separate rules and traditions (or coincidences).

I "understand" that too, scotty, just as I understand that you're trying to avoid the question here, which is why you think that these two "separate organisations" - which were not always separate and which, even since they became so, are broadly speaking charged with similar responsibilities - have different policies on the positions that women are entitled to hold within them and, in the case of CofE, this policy has shown itself to be amendable to change ever since it allowed women to become priests. To be clearer (I hope!), both Churches are supposedly steeped in Christian practice, so if the one can appoint women as priests (and doubtless also bishops, archbishops et al in time) and the other can't, what do you make of the notion of a particular Christian "tradition" that is supposedly supporting the latter in its stance?

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, ahinton, and I fully support your right to express it!

However, I do challenge your "right" to speak for 'all women'. Can women not do that for themselves?

Of course! - and in any case I obviously do not seek to speak for all women on this or anything else in any case, not least because only a minority of women would want to assume high office within the Church.

There are millions of women who are active members of the Catholic Church and seem quite happy (or at least willingly accept) its rules. Predictably, there is a small minority within the Church which is pushing for "change' but that has always been the case. Those who find the rules intolerable can always join the Church of England or another religion (or none) of their choice. It's really that simple.

No, it's not that simple, because another alternative is for them to push for change - something that you ascribe to "a tiny minority" but that might well increase to a larger swathe of Church membership in time, especially as certain stances of the Church and equivalent prescription within secular law look set to become ever more separate from one another. It is surely not only those women who seek entitlement to high office within the Church that want to see change in the way that the Church treats women!

However, away from your deep interest concerning the rules of the Catholic Church, I do find it a bit odd that you appear to be against the former policy of the Vienna Philharmonic but apparently quite relaxed over the the current discriminatory aspect of the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus.

Do you really?! I thought that I had clarified my position on this vis-à-vis all three organisations (i.e. VPO, the SF chorus and your Church). Yes, my view on the VPO policy towards women members is broadly similar to that on your Church's policy towards them and the SF chorus can call itself what it wants and appoint whomsoever it wants to its ranks in a way that I would not expect a Church to do because the former is a choir that sings to its listeners whereas the Church is a global religious organisation charged, among other duties, with pastoral care, the encouragement of spiritual development and the promotion of the teachings of Christ, so any attempt at comparison between the two would surely be rather silly.

It does seem a teeny-weeny bit illogical on your own inviolable grounds of 'equality' of gender and sexual orientation, don't you think ... ?

No; I don't think that the SF ensemble is very sensibly named as a "Gay" chorus but it is a men's chorus and, as such cannot admit women without changing into something else that would sound quite different, whereas the Church is already open to women and men equally up to the point at which it declines women's access to its higher officialdom. The comparison therefore just doesn't hold.

[Anna]

Until recently, didn't we read much the same about Archbishop Keith O'Brien, Anna?

Dunno Ams, I'm not Catholic, he just seems willing to champion the poor, disadvantaged and the disabled, perhaps he's as tainted at Keith O'Brien - but, I think not. You cannot tar all Catholics with the same brush. I have warmed to him like I never could to Benedict.

[ahinton]

Not wishing to divert this fascinating discussion, but only one woman was involved in the Pope's inaugral Mass but the new ArchBishop of Canterbury is to be enthroned by a woman:

The Venerable Sheila Watson, the Archdeacon of Canterbury, one of the most senior female clerics in the Church of England, will perform the first of two inductions in a service to formally recognise the Most Rev Justin Welby as the 105th archbishop at the city’s cathedral on Thursday.

And, completely off-topic. I like Pope Francis. He's friendly, humble like a normal Parish priest after Mass and seems like a breath of fresh air and I hope he'll deal with corruption in the Vatican (obviously the situation of women and gays will remain the same) but I think he's a top bloke.

Broadly agreed on all points. That said, the now quite considerable inconsistency between the CofE treatment of women and that of the Catholic Church requires some serious attempt at explanation that will not and indeed cannot include the alleged following of some kind of Christian "tradition" as an excuse on the part of the latter unless, by so providing one, it wilfully implies that CofE has gotten it all wrong...

There more to what I'd hope Pope Francis eventually to achieve, however, than just dealing successfully with corruption within the Vatican or even the Church's attitude towards homosexuals of both sexes and the admission of women to the upper echelons of the Church; there's the use of contraception (on which I understand Pope Francis to be somewhat less inflexible and insensitively unsympathetic than some of his predecessors), attitudes to abortion, the question of priestly celibacy and other issues, not least the acceptance that those who wish to leave the Church are quite sensibly no longer to be regarded as Catholics.

[amateur51]

Good for them, amsey!

There are much worse things printed on t-shirts ...

Would you fancy wearing one to mass next month, then scotty? Happy to supply one free-of-charge on the comfortable side of medium

[scottycelt]

Broadly agreed on all points. That said, the now quite considerable inconsistency between the CofE treatment of women and that of the Catholic Church requires some serious attempt at explanation that will not and indeed cannot include the alleged following of some kind of Christian "tradition" as an excuse on the part of the latter unless, by so providing one, it wilfully implies that CofE has gotten it all wrong...

There more to what I'd hope Pope Francis eventually to achieve, however, than just dealing successfully with corruption within the Vatican or even the Church's attitude towards homosexuals of both sexes and the admission of women to the upper echelons of the Church; there's the use of contraception (on which I understand Pope Francis to be somewhat less inflexible and insensitively unsympathetic than some of his predecessors), attitudes to abortion, the question of priestly celibacy and other issues, not least the acceptance that those who wish to leave the Church are quite sensibly no longer to be regarded as Catholics.

You STILL haven't got it, ahinton!

The Catholic Church isn't going to abandon it's morality for anyone or anything.

Hopefully, though, it will reform its 'civil service' and management which obviously is in dire need of change.

I agree with Anna that Pope Francis has made a promising start but only so far in PR terms. The real work starts now.

Being a Jesuit don't expect Francis to be mealy-mouthed and hopefully he won't be.

Benedict was absurdly portrayed by the secular media as a 'Rottweiler'. He was anything but, and turned out to be a gentle Pope who might have been ideal in other circumstances, but not now, and it's to Benedict's eternal credit that he made way for a stronger man (we hope).

Now we need action. It remains to be seen whether Francis will succeed, but I loved that steely-gaze he gave the cheering crowds when he first appeared on that balcony.

At first I thought he looked shell-shocked but it quickly became clear that was not the case.

Interesting times ... and it could just be that some Catholics are in for the biggest shock of all.

[ahinton]

You STILL haven't got it, ahinton!

"Haven't got" what, scotty?

The Catholic Church isn't going to abandon it's morality for anyone or anything.

No one - perhaps least of all me - is asking it to abandon its (apostrophe-less) "morality"; my remarks concerned changes that the Church needs to consider making if it's to continue credibly and persuasively to attract new members.

Hopefully, though, it will reform its 'civil service' and management which obviously is in dire need of change.

Indeed - and it's good that you hope as you do.

I agree with Anna that Pope Francis has made a promising start but only so far in PR terms. The real work starts now.

Agreed once again.

Being a Jesuit don't expect Francis to be mealy-mouthed and hopefully he won't be.

I share your hopes here.

Benedict was absurdly portrayed by the secular media as a 'Rottweiler'. He was anything but, and turned out to be a gentle Pope who might have been ideal in other circumstances, but not now, and it's to Benedict's eternal credit that he made way for a stronger man (we hope).

Again, I'm with you here.

Now we need action. It remains to be seen whether Francis will succeed, but I loved that steely-gaze he gave the cheering crowds when he first appeared on that balcony.

Well - let's see.

At first I thought he looked shell-shocked but it quickly became clear that was not the case.

Again, let's see.

Interesting times ... and it could just be that some Catholics are in for the biggest shock of all.

Ah, yes, indeed!

I'm very largely in agreement with you here, scotty. You know what our differences of emphasis are over the Catholic Church and I admit that they are not small even if they might be relatively few. As a non-Christian, I do not want to see the Catholic Church falling to pieces over generations because of unworkable and unwarranted inflexibility and insensitivity - and given the nature of the good work that some sectors of the Church do, such a scenario would be utterly inexcusable.

Good luck - to the Pope, to other Catholics, other Christians and the rest as long as they address issues of genuine human concern as at their best they are and indeed should be capable of addressing.

I'm going to be away now until next week, so don't expect any more rubbish from me in the interim!

[Mr Pee]

I'm going to be away now until next week