15 years ago, the General Synod of the Church of England voted to ordain women as priests. The margin of that victory was narrow, but the response to the change has been emphatic; last year the number of women being ordained overtook the number of men becoming priests for the first time. But not many of them are getting to the senior jobs, and they still can’t, of course, be bishops. Shazia Khan reports.
Update: Here is a BBC Northern Ireland Sunday Sequence Segment on the same subject also.
How does the appointment process to paid clergy positions in CoE parishes compare to that in the US? (I emphasize “paid” merely because of the large percent clergy in the CoE who are volunteers, which is quite different from the US.) Is it more top down? I suppose I’m also asking how vestries are selected and how responsive they are to the congregation.
Quite telling that nobody from the Forward in Faith or Reform constituency was consulted–opponents of WO are marginalized both in the CoE structures and by the media. Yet both are strong, and growing.
The article is depressing in its typical predictable unfairness:
1) The notion is presented that women have it rough BUT no-one asks or cares how many reform or FIF priests make senior posts. If they did (and bearing in mind the nature of the Act of Synod it is surely essential for fair journalism) then we would see who the truly marginalised in the C of E are.
2) The women and journalists refer to the priesthood not as a vcational 24/7 lifestyle of service but as a job with career opportunities. The very suggestion that posts need to be ‘part time’ to fit in child care goes to the nub of what is wrong here. This is the secularisation of the church with a working ministry not the holy church of Christ with its ontological priesthood.
3) The BBC have a huge agenda and are not interested in reporting the real issues underlying the tensions in WO. They simply wish to push a political dream. Not once in 10 years have I heard anyone given the opportunity to explain the FIF arguments against WO in a fair setting…….but then that nmight derail the true objective of the liberal elite. Instead of discussing the nature of priesthood they focus on the role of women,.
A final thought for everyone. Feminism has no place in the church as it promotes the right of the individual over the needs of the family. And the individual is always called to surrender to the greater good of the family within God’s holy church. A philsophy of individulaism- no matter how just- is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.
3)
Looking at the descent of the Episcopal Church in many precincts into a morality that is more like that of pagan religions it will not be surprising to see priestesses and bishopesses that religion’s only clergy someday–by then they will surely get proper employment compensatiuon.
#3,
Feminism may have no place in the church, but clergy families do, so I must assume that you’re in favor of an exclusively celibate priesthood.
If clergy have spouses and children at all, then they will impose additional “burdens” on them, whether the clergyperson be male or female.
I remember a priest of my acquaintance describing how, for years, he had believed that his correct order of priorities was (1) Parish; (2) God; and
(3) Self and family. It was not until his spiritual director called him on this that he realized the proper order was (1) God; (2) Self and family; and (3) Parish. If you don’t get the first two right, you’re won’t be much of a success at the third.
#5 I would agree with you to a point. Though in keeping with my faith I try and make the priorities – God – family- parish- self.
In any case – my point is that priesthood is a full time vocation by definition. Working or not. My long hours are tough- but God grants us a way to get through. My way of ensuring golden time is to care for my baby daughter on my one day off and do shopping etc for my wife. I am often tired but the sacrifice is worth it.
I think the debate I was promtping was about ‘being’ and ‘doing’