The Rapture Index

[ProfessorDavey]

How many catholic women are lining up to be priests, I wonder.

A reasonable number I'd imagine, were they to be allowed. You aren't really going to know unless the rules change. There has certainly been no lack of women wanting to be priests in the CofE since they changed their rules. I gather that we've now reached a position where more women than men are coming forward for ordination in the CofE.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you are saying that there is no concept of ''The priesthood of all believers'' I would beg to differ.

You may well beg to differ - but in a practical sense the main denominations beg to differ from your view, as they consider that not all believers are priests, only a small number who are only considered to be priests following intensive training and ordination. And for the RCC they consider that only men can be priests.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes and weighing it up I am perfectly OK for a volunteer organised institution to run on those lines because at the end of the day they might be right and I might be wrong although I at this time consider myself as the purist here. How clergy are organised is also for me not the heart of the matter.

But the law disagrees - organisations, whether voluntary or not are required to abide by the Equalities legislation and therefore not discriminate on the basis of sex. I don't see why the voluntary nature of an organisation should make any ethical distinction - discrimination is discrimination, I see no distinction between an organisation refusing to allow a woman to be in paid employment and an organisation refusing to allow a woman to be an unpaid volunteer.

Secondly, I question your definition of misogyny,

I don't think I've used this term in the current discussion. I am talking about discrimination and justice - and where there is discrimination there isn't justice.

... thirdly your insistence on secular thinking in a religious issue where there is no question of a secular substitute to all of this....and that makes your complaint more backdoor ''de-religion'' than anything else IMHO.

I disagree profoundly - what you are suggesting is that religious organisations should be able to play the 'religious card' and exempt themselves from the law of the land. I cannot accept that - the law must apply to all organisations, whether religious or otherwise. To permit religion to be used for exemptions from the law is deeply discriminatory to those who cannot play that card (i.e. individuals and organisations that aren't religious) and there cannot be justice within that context.

[ProfessorDavey]

For anybody interested:

https://catholic-womens-ordination.org.uk/

Good for them in their opinion. However, I do question why any of these people remain in an organisation whose fundamental values seem to be in such gross opposition to their own. An organisation that fundamentally does not respect or value women as they will not allow them in the key positions that are considered essential to be in a leadership position in the RCC.

But then I've often thought this of many catholics, who so often have views in complete opposition to the teaching of the RCC on marriage, LGBT rights, abortion, contraception, women priests etc etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You may well beg to differ - but in a practical sense the main denominations beg to differ from your view, as they consider that not all believers are priests, only a small number who are only considered to be priests following intensive training and ordination. And for the RCC they consider that only men can be priests.

Another argumentum ad populum? The priesthood of all believers is biblical.
As far as I know in the west only the RCC is a main denomination holding out. Where I have sympathy with your modern view of the equality of all people, the accusation of only having a small number of females could be levelled at a number of fields including and especially academia where there is apparently real misogeny.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the law disagrees - organisations, whether voluntary or not are required to abide by the Equalities legislation and therefore not discriminate on the basis of sex.

But the churches are exempt, probably because there is no secular equivalent of a priest.

I don't see why the voluntary nature of an organisation should make any ethical distinction - discrimination is discrimination, I see no distinction between an organisation refusing to allow a woman to be in paid employment and an organisation refusing to allow a woman to be an unpaid volunteer.

As far as I know the RC church is voluntary and allows women unpaid roles

what you are suggesting is that religious organisations should be able to play the 'religious card' and exempt themselves from the law of the land. I cannot accept that - the law must apply to all organisations, whether religious or otherwise.

I'm saying that there is no secular equivalence to a priest or a nun. That is why sensible people do not seek to impose secular thinking on this

To permit religion to be used for exemptions from the law is deeply discriminatory to those who cannot play that card (i.e. individuals and organisations that aren't religious) and there cannot be justice within that context.

slippery slope argument. Again a priest is a religious office for which there is no secular equivalent and religion is voluntary. It is not like say preventing gay adoption because parenting can be done by people of the same sex. RCC priestly orders are in a complimentarian tradition where there are agreed rolls that are sex related. Should that change it will be down to the members surely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good for them in their opinion.

Yes, they too believe in the priesthood of all believers.

However, I do question why any of these people remain in an organisation whose fundamental values seem to be in such gross opposition to their own.

Because what is of vital importance to you is not to them. For them, as I keep telling you this is not the heart of the matter, it isn't a deal breaker...in fact these are people who want to get deeper into it. Not like you, where what they want is what you are trying to entomb and roll the stone over the entrance. For them there is no secular role in which they can sublimate the services they want to perform

An organisation that fundamentally does not respect or value women as they will not allow them in the key positions that are considered essential to be in a leadership position in the RCC.

They don't just want to be at the top like a probably sociopathic boss in a secular setting. They want to serve Christ

But then I've often thought this of many catholics, who so often have views in complete opposition to the teaching of the RCC on marriage, LGBT rights, abortion, contraception, women priests etc etc.

Obviously not deal breaking enough. I certainly don't think there is any encouragement to defect to the New atheism which apparently in it's short timespan has already courted accusation of Misogeny.

[ProfessorDavey]

Another argumentum ad populum? The priesthood of all believers is biblical.

Then I suggest you take that up with the major denominations who don't agree with you and consider that you can only be a priest if you are trained and ordained.

But as I've said this is a sterile christian on christian argument - what I care about is justice and ensuring that discrimination doesn't happen.

[ProfessorDavey]

As far as I know the RC church is voluntary and allows women unpaid roles

But it doesn't ensure equality - as it bans women from becoming priests, so your argument is pointless. If a company or voluntary organisation allowed women to be in paid or unpaid administrative roles, but prevented them from being on the board, would you consider that fine. I wouldn't as they would be clearly discriminatory.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm saying that there is no secular equivalence to a priest or a nun.

Really - I think there are plenty of equivalents or roles which are considered vocational and support people. But it really doesn't matter if it is tricky to find an equivalent role - as to do so suggests you are demanding exceptionalism. I could image plenty of jobs and roles that don't seem to have equivalents - yet we don't allow those roles to be exempt from equalities legislation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then I suggest you take that up with the major denominations who don't agree with you and consider that you can only be a priest if you are trained and ordained.

But as I've said this is a sterile christian on christian argument - what I care about is justice and ensuring that discrimination doesn't happen.

Another argumentum ad populum?

[ProfessorDavey]

However, I do question why any of these people remain in an organisation whose fundamental values seem to be in such gross opposition to their own.Because what is of vital importance to you is not to them. For them, as I keep telling you this is not the heart of the matter, it isn't a deal breaker...in fact these are people who want to get deeper into it. Not like you, where what they want is what you are trying to entomb and roll the stone over the entrance. For them there is no secular role in which they can sublimate the services they want to perform They don't just want to be at the top like a probably sociopathic boss in a secular setting. They want to serve ChristObviously not deal breaking enough. I certainly don't think there is any encouragement to defect to the New atheism which apparently in it's short timespan has already courted accusation of Misogeny.

Perhaps - although I think there is another element - in my experience (and I have a lot of it) people brought up as catholic consider their catholicism as something inherent, almost genetic. Not something that they can actually ditch. So they might be non practicing, might disagree with pretty well everything that the RCC stands for, yet they will still consider themselves catholic.

So the people you are talking about could 'serve christ' as you describe it by joining a different christian denomination which includes the 'good' elements of the RCC christianity while jettisoning the discrimination and other elements that they profoundly disagree with. But by and large they don't - why - because they are catholic.

[ProfessorDavey]

Another argumentum ad populum?

Nope - it is an argument I'm not interested in. But one that if you consider every believer is a priest you will need to take up and try to win with christian denominations that disagree with you.

I am interested in justice and concerned about discrimination - I cannot see how these concerns are somehow an argumentum ad populum - quite the reverse. In many cases (albeit not on sex) discrimination is about minorities being disadvantaged.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it doesn't ensure equality - as it bans women from becoming priests, so your argument is pointless. If a company or voluntary organisation allowed women to be in paid or unpaid administrative roles, but prevented them from being on the board, would you consider that fine. I wouldn't as they would be clearly discriminatory.

And yet how many secular companies have anything but a token female presence? The managing director of the RCC should be the last not the first, that's biblical and that would be world changing if a Pope actually followed the bible on that one. That he is seen as like a normal secular ''boss'' by spectators such as yourself is a failure. As far as I can see the BVM is considered ''On the board''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really - I think there are plenty of equivalents or roles which are considered vocational and support people.

Like what? A humanist celebrant?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps - although I think there is another element - in my experience (and I have a lot of it) people brought up as catholic consider their catholicism as something inherent, almost genetic. Not something that they can actually ditch. So they might be non practicing, might disagree with pretty well everything that the RCC stands for, yet they will still consider themselves catholic.

So the people you are talking about could 'serve christ' as you describe it by joining a different christian denomination which includes the 'good' elements of the RCC christianity while jettisoning the discrimination and other elements that they profoundly disagree with. But by and large they don't - why - because they are catholic.

Or work to change things from within. I can see merits in what you are trying to say here but I could ask therefore why you are still attached to academia given it's misogyny?

[ProfessorDavey]

Like what? A humanist celebrant?

Perhaps, or a midwife, or a counsellor etc. But as I've said it is irrelevant whether you can find a clear equivalent - if you think priests shouldn't be subject to the same rules as other roles then you are demanding exceptionalism, regardless of whether there is a secular equivalent.

You could just as easily claim that there is no civilian equivalent to a member of the military and therefore that it is fine to ban women from being in the military. We used to ban women, but we don't anymore.

[ProfessorDavey]

Or work to change things from within.

Sure I get that, although I suspect it is a pretty challenging task to persuade the RCC to change its rules.

I can see merits in what you are trying to say here but I could ask therefore why you are still attached to academia given it's misogyny?

Massive non-equivalence - sure academia have challenges with equality, but name me a sector that doesn't to one extent or another. However universities do not ban women from being academics (they once did, but not for years), they don't prevent women from becoming professors, they don't ban women from being Vice Chancellors and run universities etc etc. There is simply no equivalence to the RCC which does ban women from being priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps, or a midwife, or a counsellor etc. But as I've said it is irrelevant whether you can find a clear equivalent - if you think priests shouldn't be subject to the same rules as other roles then you are demanding exceptionalism, regardless of whether there is a secular equivalent.

You could just as easily claim that there is no civilian equivalent to a member of the military and therefore that it is fine to ban women from being in the military. We used to ban women, but we don't anymore.

Your suggestions are again another ''dereligiousing'' tactic. I don't see the link between priestlyness and being a midwife particularly when you could be both priest and midwife at the same time, ditto counsellor and priest. But you are suggesting a secular society where people are forced to have pure secular motives where the role of serving God is abolished in an Orwellian frenzy.

We did ban women from the military but in 1914 that didn't stop them coming out in squadron numbers with white feathers brow beating men into the horrors of the trench.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sure I get that, although I suspect it is a pretty challenging task to persuade the RCC to change its rules.
Massive non-equivalence - sure academia have challenges with equality, but name me a sector that doesn't to one extent or another. However universities do not ban women from being academics (they once did, but not for years), they don't prevent women from becoming professors, they don't ban women from being Vice Chancellors and run universities etc etc. There is simply no equivalence to the RCC which does ban women from being priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope etc.

So the misogyny in Academia is therefore like the misogyny in the metropolitan police?
Part of the psychological make up of the recruit rather than appeal to tradition or scripture.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the misogyny in Academia is therefore like the misogyny in the metropolitan police?
Part of the psychological make up of the recruit rather than appeal to tradition or scripture.

How said that academia is misogynist - certainly not me. And I'm not sure an organisation can be misogynist, I think misogyny applies to individuals.

So are there individuals in academia that are misogynist - sure there are, just as there are in pretty well any other organisation. But note that misogyny and lack of equality aren't the same thing - organisations can fail to achieve equality in practice even if their policies and practices are scrupulously equal and none of the people in the organisation are prejudiced.

So how does this apply to academia - well I think I have a much better understanding than you, and I can tell you that the whole EDI agenda is massive in academia to the extent that people in many other walks of life would be astonished at what is in our policies and practices to support equality and the pro-active approach taken. Is this completely successful - no, it isn't. There is further to go - but one of the reasons why academia understands this is because of the huge level of data gathering that we undertake compared to many other sectors. And one of the reasons academia does this is to support its Athena Swan submissions - this is where universities submit their data, action plans, and outcomes on EDI to an independent external body who then rates the organisation Gold, Silver, Bronze etc on its progress on EDI.

So are universities like the Met Police - well I have no inside view of the Met so it isn't easy to know, but from what I can see from the outside universities are hugely different (and better) in terms of support for EDI generally and for equality for women specifically.

But of course, this little side-line is a diversionary tactic, as we were talking about lack of equality in churches and here there is no comparison with universities. The former (e.g. RCC, CofE) have in place policies and practices that are directly and deliberately discriminatory, while the latter may not achieve full equality in practice I can be confident that none of our policies and practices are directly and deliberately discriminatory.

[jeremyp]

Another argumentum ad populum? The priesthood of all believers is biblical.

Citation needed.

As far as I know in the west only the RCC is a main denomination holding out. Where I have sympathy with your modern view of the equality of all people, the accusation of only having a small number of females could be levelled at a number of fields including and especially academia where there is apparently real misogeny.

Worse than the misogyny in the Catholic Church? Nope.

[ProfessorDavey]

... the accusation of only having a small number of females could be levelled at a number of fields including and especially academia where there is apparently real misogeny.

Says someone who doesn't work in academia. While I am aware that there isn't full equality for women in academia, Universities are bending over backwards to address this issue and don't believe I've never encountered open misogeny in my time in academia - certainly not in the past couple of decades.

And actually, although there is more to do, academia isn't too bad in terms of female representation and there has been very strong progress over the past few years. Nearly one third of all University Vice Chancellors (the person who runs a university) are female, and when you look at the overall senior leadership teams that proportion rises to nearly 40%. Still some way off full equality, but the equivalent proportions a decade ago were significantly lower.

So nearly one third of UK universities are run by women - lets compare that with major christian denominations. How many major christian denominations are led by women (e.g. role of pope, ABofC, Patriarch (note even the name) of the Orthodox churches). Come on then Vlad, how many are run by women - I'm not aware of any now, nor in the past, but perhaps you can point to all the women in the chief leadership positions.

So Vlad, I'm not saying that academia is perfect - it isn't but it is working extremely hard to improve. But don't insult universities by comparing them with churches, many (probably most) of whom have deliberate, directly discriminatory policies in place.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How said that academia is misogynist -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism_in_academia
The priesthood of all believers is biblical.

Citation needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers

So Vlad, I'm not saying that academia is perfect - it isn't but it is working extremely hard to improve.

But so is the church of England and yet you have belittled those efforts. Also, you have treated the sacramental and liturgical role of the priest in main denomination as the equivalent of management. Since the first should be last and the last first in the kingdom it is wrong running a ''priesthood'' like that but equally wrong to perpetuate that view by making an argument that women aren't allowed the ''top positions'' in the church.

Misogyny in academia has zero rationale behind it so women, you will find, will not get behind any of it in other words there is no complimentarian argument or finding of ''no authority'' (since the pope had no divine leading on the matter) to ordain women priests like the RCC to be made and never has been to justify academics' misogyny. Academia=Job, ecclesia =vocation.

[jeremyp]

Wikipedia is in the Bible now is it.