The Blue Cross, firstly can I make it really clear that I'm not defending what I'm going to reference.

I used to believe some of this stuff (and struggled with some parts because of the kind of issues they raise) so have some understanding of where some come from. I've had almost nill involvement with the workings of the catholic church so they may come at it from a different angle.

I think that the piece at http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html sum's up the rational for a lot of the christain churches. An alternative viewpoint can be found at http://bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=136 (although I found it an awkward read).

At the same time there are plenty of other things that christians seem to be able to discard when it suits (a church I used to attend did not do so well on elders not being lovers of money).

Whilst it's glaringly obvious from outside just how much christian's pick and choose which bit's of the bible they take literally it's not so obvious from inside. Many will question if they have the balance right but not see the whole picture. For many to knowingly give ground on issues like this seems to be a literal rejection of the teachings of their god.

Again I can only draw on my own experience so I don't know how it works in a lot of the traditional churches (although from what I've read it's very similar). For the most part it's the older women who care most about maintaining the traditions of the church in the ones I'd been involved in. Heaven help the pastor who upsets the women's groups in many churches, he will be looking for a new role elsewhere in a big hurry. Power is not always where it seems to be.

R0bert

I had, until very recently, been opposed to the ordination of women in the Catholic Church. Then, when I started preparing resources for one of my classes on logical fallacies, this whole debacle reared its ugly head. In light of my reading, I realised that I had fallen victim to a 'fallacy of tradition': the belief that, because it has always been this way, this is the right way for it to be. Because the Church had always had only male priests, it is right for the Church to continue having only male priests. You don't have to be a genius to see the lapse in logic there.

That said, I do think the current media beat-up is just that: a media beat-up. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a member of the Catholic Church (including the Pope and his College of Cardinals) who believes, as the media suggests, that the ordination of women is as serious a sin as child abuse. And I don't think that's what this is all about.

I think the notion that people who ordain women, and women who nominate themselves for ordination, are putting themselves into the same boat as old Fr. Kennedy of St. Mary's. They are placing themselves outside the Church - defying the rules and rewriting the rule book. As with any organisation, there is no place for such people in the Church: there is a place for questioning, but not for blatant defiance. As a result, they are separated from the Church through excommunication. They are welcome to continue their Catholic beliefs in their own Church communities - just without the umbrella of Roman Catholicism over their heads. They are excommunicated not for the gravity of their sin, but for their incompatibility with the Church itself.

Continued . . .

Continued . . .

Paedophilia and child abuse, on the other hand, are sins - and there is always room for sinners within the Church. They tamper with kids, commit atrocities, show remorse and get to keep their place in the Church. They keep tampering, keep feigning remorse and keep being 'forgiven'. Certainly I don't condone this - at the end of the day, their sin is heinous and must be dealt with accordingly. But, in the spirit of 'loving sinners', the Church keeps giving them second, third and fourth chances.

The difference, then, is that those who ordain women are, in effect, excommunicating themselves: taking power into their own hands and stepping outside the hierarchy. They should not be surprised or even upset at their excommunication. At the end of the day, the Catholic Church wasn't right for them. They are given the freedom (but not necessarily the capital) to practise Christianity in the way they want to. The Church keeps its sinners and throws out the rule-breakers.

For the record, I'm not supporting this stance - just explaining it as I understand it, because our media has (as usual) done a good job of obscuring truth in favour of sensationalism. I think the timing of the declaration, and the failure to deliver an equally damning judgement against those who fail to protect - and even dare to defile - our most vulnerable humans was in poor taste. It shows the lack of media-savvy and possibly a lack of compassion (even common sense) in the Church hierarchy.

Prattle on Squeers; it goes without saying that most Australian women are far too busy in our lives to sit and peruse newspapers on-line or in hard copy. The majority of women I mix with socially and through work do not have the luxury of 'time' to either come across or address these ridiculous media articles.

Most are mothers who perform the lions share of the domestic scene in addition to working and raising their children.

You were seeking a bite; enjoy Squeers.

TBC, you have certainly opened a can of worms with this subject!
I can hardly wait for some poster's replies and comments.

While I don't quite believe that the male hierarchy in most Christian religions believe that female ordination is worse than child abuse, I can certainly see where you are coming from.

While some church leaders were happy to allow paedophile clergymen to continue their duties, even after they were known to abuse kids, these same church leaders absolutely refuse to allow the elevation of female followers to the same positions as themselves.

Go figure?
I too wonder just what these male church leaders are afraid of.

Maybe there is more truth to the book written by Dan Brown "The Da Vinci Code" than the church hierarchy allows us to believe?

The 'Sacred Feminine' theory always seemed quite plausible to me.
http://www.lysistrataproject.org/SacredFeminine.htm

<"Throughout humanity’s societies, the Sacred Feminine has been identified with the qualities of wisdom, justice, beauty, and compassion. She is also the irresistible power that destroys old forms and brings new ones into being."

Surely it is at least as plausible as the stories from the bible?

I personally would not want anything to do with any church, but I would support any woman who felt the need to be involved in a church at a level of her choosing.

I've been a Catholic all my life, and I'm deeply repulsed by the way the Church has conducted itself regarding certain issues. One of those issues is the status of women within the Church. One thing's for certain, many actions of the Church bear little resemblance to the life that Jesus led. The Church is a wonderful thing, giving and selfless with great insight... while at the same time an abomination by being selfish, cruel and bigoted ........ a true Jekyll and Hyde of opposites. Change, "real" change, will only happen from within. That's why many of us remain Catholics.