Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.
The Lord be with you, but not with her -or- Pastoral care for neanderthals
NOprophet_NØprofit
Shipmate
Let's accommodate a traditionalist guy. Should anyone care what people like him think?
Here's a media article. Craziness abounds.
Gong!
Here's a media article. Craziness abounds.
.Cathedral 'should help conservative worshippers avoid women priest-led services'
Gong!
Tagged:
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Perhaps his sensibilities are such that he feels unable to remain present while a woman celebrates? Perhaps he's just miffed that he prepared himself for communion and is now (by his lights) unable to receive?
The fact that he walked out is, I think, secondary. He wants to receive communion on a regular basis, as do many people. It's not uncommon in these days to find churches offering communion on alternate weeks due to a general shortage of priests. Nobody (as far as I know) thinks it unreasonable to publish in advance whether the Sunday service will be communion or morning prayer, and nobody looks askance at people who prefer to travel elsewhere for communion on days where there is no priest and morning prayer is offered.
The gentleman in question seems to be in rather this position (albeit by his own choice/conscience to doubt the orders of female priests) and it doesn't seem unreasonable for him to want to take himself elsewhere for communion on days when a woman is presiding, and so (for him) communion would not be available.
Should we accommodate him? The C of E has explicitly stated that it's going to accommodate those who doubt the validity of women priests. It allows parishes to pass resolutions A, B, and C, and so on. In that context, asking a Cathedral to indicate whether the president would be acceptable to those of a strain of thought that the C of E declares as reasonable to hold seems fair enough.
And should prejudice be acceptable, just because it is historic prejudice? If someone wanted to boycott a service being led by a disabled or an ethnic minority priest, would that be regarded as equally reasonable?
Move on a decade or so, and the curate and other team ministers were all female, so the male rector consulted this service and said that he was no longer able to guarantee a male celebrant at this Friday lunchtime service, was this going to be a problem? And by this time, that congregation accepted a female celebrant.
What seems to have happened here is that Wakefield Cathedral has imposed a change without consultation with the interested parties. including this gentleman. As the CofE guidelines does still say that provision needs to be made ...
The objector could have requested home communion from a male member of the team instead of imposing his own agenda. It's not best practice to advise named clergy for services because it can lead to followings emerging rather than community fellowship at services.
I’m a Methodist so we have a plan which is published and distributed to all members. We know who is preaching 3 months ahead.
Which should not be accommodated. Neither racism. And if you're racist or sexist you don't get accommodated. Soft headed to do so. There's a peculiar culture of church land which sometimes lives decades and sometimes centuries behind.
From his point of view, the cathedral’s argument about the centrality of the offering of the Eucharist ignores his belief that what is offered by a woman is no Eucharist at all. (However wrong I may consider that belief to be.)
I can understand the cathedral wanting to avoid a situation where worshippers are saying ‘I don’t like Canon X, I’m not going if he’s celebrating’ or ‘Canon Y’s liturgical style sets my teeth on edge, I’m not going if he’s celebrating’, or ‘Canon Z always comes across as so superior, I’m not going if she’s celebrating’; and agree with them that the offering of the Eucharist is what matters, not the personality of the priest.
OTOH I have a degree of sympathy with someone who may have diligently prepared themself for communion, and perhaps fasted, and then comes and finds themself at a service which they do not regard as communion at all.
I don’t believe that the cathedral should have to make special provision at festivals etc. by ensuring that men preside on those occasions because others may be equally concerned because they wish to be able to receive from a woman on such occasions. But I don’t see a problem with simply enabling a person to know whether the president is male or female,
The CoE decided that it would accommodate this belief/opinion so it can now either repudiate its accommodation, or just post the name of the celebrating priest. That they might not want to do either is the sort of thing we are seeing at Westminster-- trying to have it both ways while denying that they are doing any such thing, and all in the hope that it will go away someday, or that something may turn up. Perhaps it's an ethnic English characteristic?
I have a big problem with people offering themselves for ordination refusing to accept that women can be priests, into a church that ordains women, but not accommodating the people in the pews for whom the goal posts were changed.
Absolutely. The least they could do is hold them inside a building, preferably a conspicuous building. And with a door. Then there's no chance of the guy accidentally stumbling on one while shopping or walking in the park.
Will we apply the same rules in the future to those who have serious reservations about the validity of LGBT priests either in or celebrating SSM or SSB's?
That depends on whether there is a serious theological argument for the invalidity of the orders of gay priests, and on whether the C of E makes a commitment to accommodate people who hold that opinion.
As far as I am aware, there are plenty of people who think gay priests are scandalous, but nobody who thinks they aren't priests. So I think the situation will not arise.
I'll add that I'm usually interested in knowing the name of the celebrant - if it's Fr. Longwinded, I'll know that the sermon will be half an hour or so, and I can plan the rest of my day to accommodate that.
Now, you could argue that a gay person who believed that gay sex, gay relationships, and gay marriage are all not sinful and in fact good things could not have the valid intent to do as the Church teaches/does needed to validly receive Holy Orders. But so many priests are ordained who have beliefs abut key issues of faith and morality that others consider heretical that there would be a whole lot fewer validly ordained priests left if this were true!
What's an SSB, please? I can only think of baptism or burial, but I can't see why those would be problematic.
Thx.
Blessing perhaps?