Dear Grandmere Mimi
I'm usually a lurker, but I think I'll comment on this one.
I was at university in the UK, studying theology, when the whole issue of ordaining women started to become "hot". The truth of the matter is that, historically, the priesthood in the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox Church has been nothing more than men's club designed to attract and retain an above average percentage of lazy males unwilling to work in the harsh, secular world.
In my time both at university and, much later, when I worked with a man who had left the Anglican Church over the issue and gone on to become ordained in the Orthodox Church, I have heard and read a number of theological arguments for an all-male priesthood, all of which hinge on the essential God-given nature of men and women.
What undermines all of these arguments, as far as I'm concerned, is the one thing that is hardly ever mentioned: the fact that in these churches priests are paid. And, in two of these churches, the Anglican and EO, the priest is also allowed to marry.
The effect of all of this is that a Christian man, but not a Christian woman, can choose to be a paid professional in an institution that is daubed as "Christ's Church".
In any argument and issue, it is always worth asking: who gains, in material terms, from this arrangement? (My emphasis)
As far as going over to Rome is concerned, by no means all stay - even David Virtue has had to admit this.
Jane Smith (Pretoria, South Africa)
Jane's commentary intrigued me so, that I decided to bump up her words to an opinion post.
The men's club label is difficult to dispute. In fact, I won't even try.
While the priesthood (along with the groves of academe) may tend to attract a fair number of lazy men who would have a difficult time making their way in the secular world, I'd estimate a higher percentage than Jane of men who enter the priesthood as idealists who wish to serve God and God's people.
I can't speak with authority about the Church of England or the Orthodox Church, but I've known a good many Roman Catholic priests and Episcopal priests, and I'd say the majority enter as idealists. Sadly, in far too many cases, (but not all!) the institution of the RCC drives good men to ruin or entirely out of the church. Less so in the Episcopal Church, in my experience, but the institution still takes its toll.
I have heard and read a number of theological arguments for an all-male priesthood, all of which hinge on the essential God-given nature of men and women.Like Jane, I'm not impressed by the theological arguments about the God-given nature of men and women, which conclude that women are, by nature, unsuited to serve as clergy. The essential God-given nature of men and women is to be human. While I do not deny differences between men and women, the differences don't disqualify women to serve as clergy.
In any argument and issue, it is always worth asking: who gains, in material terms, from this arrangement?The money quote (no pun intended), most certainly! Who benefits from the arrangements? And isn't it the status quo that is most often seen to be in need of protection? Whoever is in power, wants to retain power.
With regard to those who go over to Rome and then decide that they made a mistake, I suggest we leave the door open.
Jane, thanks for your commentary.
UPDATE: From IT in the comments:
I would certainly like to live in the the tidy sinecure of academe that is invoked here. That certainly isn't MY experience, where my research and grant-writing are more than a full time job, which I still have to combine with the other full time job of teaching and institutional administration that pays 9 months of my salary, and of course my national service responsibilities (reviewing, etc) to professional societies, journals, and funding organizations, including grant and paper review, committee service, and far too many plane trips.
I'm sure there are some living cushy lives of privilege, but they aren't in my building.
I agree with the quote in bold, absolutely and utterly, and as a matter of general principle, not just as applied to this particular situation.
ReplyDeleteI have absolutely no means of judging whether the church has tended to attract lazy men, but if so, it might not be dissimilar to academia, which back in the old days at least offered a fairly cushy, privileged lifestyle (and also appealed to clever idealists). So it seemed to me at the time, anyway, though it's certainly not the case any more.
I would certainly like to live in the the tidy sinecure of academe that is invoked here. That certainly isn't MY experience, where my research and grant-writing are more than a full time job, which I still have to combine with the other full time job of teaching and institutional administration that pays 9 months of my salary, and of course my national service responsibilities (reviewing, etc) to professional societies, journals, and funding organizations, including grant and paper review, committee service, and far too many plane trips.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there are some living cushy lives of privilege, but they aren't in my building.
Cathy, indeed, about the question as to who benefits.
ReplyDeleteIT, objection duly noted. And I concede that the situation has changed over the years, although the lives of cushy privilege in the academy are still around. I'm sorry you don't have such a position. :-)
PS for IT: I added your comment to the post in an update, for you make a valid point.
ReplyDeleteThanks. It's a persistent myth that keeps popping up and does NOT represent the majority of hard working academic professionals.
ReplyDeleteIn theory the Church of Scotland is supposed to have equality for men and women. Women have been ordained as Elders and Ministers since 1968. Sadly, in actual fact women tend to get the more difficult jobs in faraway areas or inner cities. And, they don't get the high profile positions in the world of Boards and Committees. Before I retired, I learnt that only the grace of God can keep us going. Sadly, parity only goes so far. I suppose in many ways it is easier for Presbyterian clergy because there is less emphasis on Priest in place of Christ theology.
ReplyDeleteThe MOST offensive aspect of the all-male priesthood, is that it ASSUMES (and all but declares) that EVERY woman who has ever discerned a call to the priesthood, is insane (or perhaps, evil).
ReplyDeletePope&hivemind: "Whoops, that wasn't God you heard calling---unlike those men who claimed to hear God's call. Must have been Satan---or voices in your head!"
ALL these otherwise sane, functional women clergy, are deceived-by-Satan or crazy.
Doesn't pass the Smell Test!
IT - it was agreed upon to be the case by a good many of the academics I studied under back when I did my first degree, 30 years ago (in other words, my tutors and lecturers kept saying rather smugly how cushy they felt it was). I am not sure that that would have applied to every department (and perhaps never applied to the sciences, as opposed to the arts). But it's certainly also the general impression I continued to get from the friends of mine who stayed in academia and made a career of it, compared to those who left (ie, me). I did say things had changed in the intervening period of time, though (and may from memory have started to change even then).
ReplyDeleteFreda, I'm sorry to hear that the Scottish Church honors equality more in the breach than the observance. I rather think it's the same in the Scottish Episcopal Church. I'd be surprised if it were not.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't pass the Smell Test!
Right you are, JCF.
Grandpère worked in an academic library for his working life, and he never knew what it was to work in the rough and tumble world of business or labor.
ReplyDeleteI believe the scientists worked harder than those in Humanities, even back in the halcyon days.
Science is quite different. Perhaps this is a "two cultures" question. I admit that on the rare occasions when I lunch at the faculty club, I see several faculty enjoying a long lunch with wine. (They look disparagingly at the scientists who tend to wear jeans and be in a hurry to get back to the lab--and sure as hell aren't drinking with lunch).
ReplyDeleteMy first job was at a "soft money" research institute where I had to get my entire salary from research grants, as well as the salary of all those working for me. It's like running a small business. Not in the least cushy. Now that I am at a research university, the time I spent writing extra grants before, I now spend teaching. It still ain't cushy.
Dear Grandmere Mimi
ReplyDeleteThank you for putting my comments into the main part of your blog.
I think you are right: many men enter the priesthood as idealists and get crushed by the institution.
For a sad example of what can happen, see the blog "The gospel according to hate".
Jane Smith
IT, you have taken my earlier remarks terribly personally - I never would have meant you in a million years. It is obvious you work hard. I also thought I had made it clear I was talking about an earlier era, now gone, but maybe I didn't. When I was a student most of my lecturers had tenure and it didn't matter how slack they were, or indeed how crap at their job (and some were both), they could not be fired. I also knew at least two of the postgrad students I went through with who went on to work in academia and who quite specifically said that they liked the job because it allowed them the luxury of so much free time during the working day. That's what I was basing my thoughts on (among other things). But that was then :-)
ReplyDeleteI do have to say I had a friend working as a tutor in the Physics department and doing a PhD and he never seemed to do a stroke of work either. Maybe he just concealed it well :-)
ReplyDeleteIT, I've read about the severe budget cuts to universities in California. We're experiencing the same situation here in Louisiana. Those who work for universities are being asked to do more for less, and that's not to speak of those who have lost their jobs due to the budget crunch. The cuts here are draconian to the point that the quality of education will be adversely affected for years to come.
ReplyDeleteJane Smith, thanks for leaving your comment. As you see, the post sparked a lively discussion.
ReplyDelete