Is the male-only priesthood a discipline or essential to the nature of being a priest? Sr. Vassa (again unflinchingly taking up a contentious topic by climbing up the ladder to the highest platform and then jumping into the deep end head first) dives right in and says there is no reason beyond personal preference to not have female clergy. You know, when people ask me about women in priesthood, they say, 'Sister, why can't women be priests?' And I say, 'Women CAN be priests. We don't WANT them to be priests.' Because you see, God can do anything, and the Church, by divine authority, uh, can do anything, but, the Church doesn't want to - and that's a legitimate reason. What I don't like is when we TRY to pretend that there are other reasons for this, because it's legitimate not to want something, and there are reasons not to want this - right? - but, we shouldn't pretent that there's some... reason, that, for example, the maleness...
seems like stone walling to me, just look at the bishop demetri situation and how the tried to bring him back, and due to the outcry wwere unsuccessful,,,,,,,, canons are canons, rules are rules. but is seems that once someone is part of the "Sanctified Brethren", as Garrrison Kiellor would describe them, then you are above reproach.
ReplyDeleteas newton said, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" , i guess that this situation there ia another set of law that apply
reminds me of when i gave technical testimony in Washington before a senate committee and told them that what they were proposing violated the laws of science and engineering, and one senator yelled at me and blurted out, "what are these laws of science and engineering , we are congress and we make the laws"
this situation is clear as day, canons were violated, nuff said,, or what is the back story? I was once told that if you point a inger, three are pointing back at you. this situation just helps to erode our confidence, doesn't it.
May God save us all, Hospodi Pomuli!