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.
