mjpb...

You'll just have to read some cycling history, there is no space here to explain how important the bike was to freeing women from their diminished status, as required by God, of course, so clearly it could not be have been wrong.

'Sacred tradition' in the 1800s had it that women did not ride bikes, being an unnatural act, but somehow society managed to come to grips with the sheer horror of it, and now women-and-bicycles are a feature of global life. It did change mjpb, but only because some rose above it all, and defied the 'sacred tradition' of the era.... just as some headway was made over the tradition of slavery....amazing how things can change, if people require it.

Now, to cater to Foxy's abject horror at this discussion slipping into a mere discussion on gender, let's have a look at The Good Book.

'Catholicism for Dummies', 2003, says woman are cannot be priests cos the rules are a 'constitutive element of the Sacrament of Holy Orders'.

Simple, eh?

This simply cannot be changed because nothing that forms a 'valid matter' in any of the seven sacraments can ever change.... ever, never-ever.

Also, 'Sacred Tradition' of 2000 years has never had a woman priest.

Finally, Jesus did not ordain any women, or call any to be an apostle, not even his mum.

So, there you have it.

All explained in PJP 11s encyclical, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, of 1994

Foxy is right... not a gender issue AT ALL.

I do apologise for even thinking gender might have been a part of the issue.

But... it does seem just a little too convenient to have a few rules, cared for diligently only by males, that support the status quo, for ever, and ever, and ever, world without end. Amen.

As for AliG, I find him really quite stupidly inane and offensive, and cannot stand his humour.

I foolishly went to a film of his with my wife, where he shot around the US doing Norman Gunston tricks on everyone... I'll pass on your invite to pursue the AG connection.

The Blue Cross,

The "sacred tradition" there reads like a use of colourful language (in the non euphemistic sense) rather than a literal reference to Church dogma but I haven't read the whole book. It is obvious why the feminist movement came about.

I kid you not...

"Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe that the revealed Word of God is both written (Sacred Scriptures) and unwritten (Sacred Tradition). When the Bible is silent or ambiguous, Sacred Tradition authentically fills in the gaps. Sacred Tradition shows that women were never ordained... (Triglio & Brighenti 2003, p.223)."

They are both 'Revs' and PhDs, and Roman Catholics.

It's a fail safe system, and fine if you believe it and never seek to question it, and are not paid by the secular state to fund it and impose it on others who do not share its 'wisdom'.

Because it contains implications, actions, and inactions that are 'beyond the pale' for many others.

But I like the 'authentically fills the gaps' line, in a sort of quaint, medieval way.

I can almost feel my hoodie and sandals, as I shuffle along the dirt street, mumbling thanks for my poverty and ever so 'umble station-in-life, wondering if Monty Python would ever exist.

How simple civic life would be if we were all still Morris dancing and prancing around the Maypole with our Harvest Festival goodies, while carefully ignoring the intrusion of authentic Pagan life there.

We could have avoided the Spinning Jenny and all she wrought in her wake, still be sailing wooden boats, riding horseback (no pesky 'unregistered' bikes to clog the roads), oh, how simple if we'd only stuck to tradition to authentically fill our empty lives.

What abundant JOY would be ours for the taking!

But no, we lost our way, and took up with Nick, who has led us into temptation, and delivered us from the good life, into Mayhem and Bedlam.... the price of free will, no less.

What utter folly we have heaped upon our heads.

If only, if only....

I blame Eve, that cunning sheila, but others are more charitable.

From the experiences of some of my elderly relatives and their friends, the established churches seem to offer a lot of practical benefits to women. They also provide a meeting place and support to young women with children.

Much of the ill-feeling and reaction against churches seems to be against the Catholic Church. That is understandable given the unique and very powerful position of Catholic priests. That wouldn't change if there were women priests, it is the power structure that is at fault.

Returning to the caring and supportive role of most churches for the less fortunate, many elderly people would be entirely social contact and aid for small but awkward jobs around the home were it not for the 'extension' services of their local churches. It is a feature of modern Australian culture that extended families have largely been destroyed and adult children may rarely visit elderly relatives, including their own parents who survive into old age.

Perhaps, in order to achieve their freedom, women may have to adopt an androgynous idea of themselves - to grasp the imaginative powers required to transcend their earth-bound subordinate psyche and embark on an odyssey of their own invention.
Emily Brontë achieved it in her towering act of creation - she became Heathcliff (fused with Catherine?)
Or is passion the emotion that mankind is most fearful of. Whenever the fusion of gender takes place there is passion...Flaubert said, "Madame Bovary, c'est moi!".

Dear mjpb,
it's been a looooong day and I'm tired, but I would prefer to have constructive dialogue over this, and so will explain myself more fully asap.

Dear Poirot,
what's not to love about "Madame Bovary"? Though 'tis a poor "persons" Anna Karenina. We'll have to have another literary thread some time.