THE FEMALE BISHOP AND THE VATICAN

Continuing in my Episcopalian mode, a recent article in our paper’s religion section was titled “Female Episcopal bishop could strain Catholic ties”.

I mentioned before that as soon as the Episcopal Church in the United States elected Katherine Jefferts Schori to be presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Vatican said forgetaboutit to talks of uniting the two churches.

Now just to be clear, the Vatican did not seem to have any problems with female Episcopal priests, gay priests or gay bishops, the problem is specifically a female bishop or any female that is placed in an “in charge” position within the Episcopal Church – interesting?

The Vatican’s top dude in charge of liaison with non-Catholic Christians, Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to the Church of England’s bishops (Anglicans) about the four decades of work trying to bring both churches to “shared communion” – union?

He said that the goal of restoring full relations would no longer exist if the Anglican mother church in England were to consecrate a female bishop. He said nothing about a gay bishop!

Here is the kicker – Kasper defended his views and that of the Vatican on “theological convictions”.

It appears that the Vatican first explained its opposition to female priests when Canadian Episcopalians authorized female priests in 1975 and the U.S. in 1976.

Pope Paul VI said the ban honors “the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held” this fits “God’s plan for his church”.

Aha! It appears that this old reason, which many in the church have abandoned as silly, has resurrected and still holds as the official Vatican rationale.

Well using the Vatican’s own “Historical Critical Method” of reading the Gospels / Scripture exactly how and why they were written IN THE EXACT TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN IN, not as if they were written today to today’s population; Jesus had to choose men because women were total crap in their society and were treated as such! Obviously the Catholic Church still maintains that tradition along with the Muslims and a few others.

In fact, Jesus made it a point to associate with women and had women followers AND WAS CRITICIZED FOR DOING SO.

Here is the BIG POINT that the Vatican obviously refuses to recognize. The Gospels state that after Jesus died and resurrected, who did he appear to first? Who did the Angel appear to? Who was told to “tell the others what you have seen”? Who was deemed to be “the Apostle to the Apostles”? I can keep going but you know the answer – it was a woman or women depending which Gospel you read.

If the resurrection is so bloody important to the Catholic faith, you would think GOD would want to
present such an important and religion defining act to the leader of his chosen MEN – no, He chose to
reveal this most sacred of acts to a woman / women!

As far as I am concerned the Vatican does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to their argument against female priests, in fact, the Vatican insults all our intelligences by their stubborn and silly stance.
I will have more on this when I calm down.

Janusz

ps. What did you think of Paul VI's statement that this fits "God's plan for his church"?
Don't you just hate people who know what God is thinking and what His plans are?