Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:01:14 EST
From:         "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,
              x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM>
Subject:      FWD: Something for the mailbag

This is being forwarded from the Episcopal list.  I thought the comments about
priests and Mary to be very interesting (but don't attribute them to me).

From:	MX%"uunet!dragon!compuserve.com!76675.3032@esseye.si.com"   11-NOV-1992
00:12:17.64
To:	TILLMAN
CC:
Subj:	Something for the mailbag

Dear Louie,

Here are some ruminations on current events for you. Hope all's well your
end.

Tobias

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Advent is once again nearly upon us: a season of expectation and
hope, but also of controversy and scandal. We tend to forget how
scandalous Christianity is. Those who try to turn it into a moralistic
system for the preservation of the society overlook just how upsetting
first-century society, religious and civic, found this strange new sect.
The church is called to be a counter-culture against systems which
limit the spiritual and human potential of each individual, the full
and abundant life for which Christ died. Sadly, instead of leading the
offense, the church often colludes in repression and continued slavery
to systems and structures in the name of good order and
respectability. It takes the path of Caiaphas, the expediency of
sacrificing the rights of the few for the comfort of the many. Lord,
deliver us; give us new hearts to feel; give us new ears to hear; and
give us strong hands to work.

Carey, Carey, quite contrary
----------------------------
Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey was quoted as saying,
during his recent American tour, that he thought there were too
many "one-issue" bishops occupying the church's time with
essentially insignificant matters.

It appears, however, that this is the way the church has always
worked. Jesus Christ was crucified largely because of his
understanding of certain Jewish sabbath and dietary laws. Paul spent
most of his career dealing with the single issue of circumcision and
the place of gentiles in the church. He made use of the single issue of
"the resurrection" in setting the Pharisees against the Sadducees when
he was brought up on trial. (Acts 23) The ecumenical councils were
called, for the most part, to deal with single issues, whether about the
Trinity, the dual nature, the translation of bishops, or the role of
icons. This is not to say that other issues and concerns and
controversies did not occupy the leaders of the church; but it seems
that there was always a key matter to be dealt with, at turning points
in the church's pilgrimage.

So it is today. Like it or not, the issue with which the church must
deal today is sexuality. This is far more complex than Carey would
have us believe. It is connected with concerns as near and far as the
nature of the Incarnation; the ordination of women; the meaning of
fidelity and chastity; the structures of authority, domination, and
hierarchy, whether based on sex or race; the nature of the church in
its local and ecumenical perspective; and what it means to be a child
of the resurrection. Yes, it is one issue; but it is the issue with which
the church is faced.

It is no good saying, "Let's get on with the real work of the church,"
because this is the real work the Holy Spirit has given us now. We
cannot be effective evangelists until we come to terms with the issues
that occupy the world. What are we evangelists _to_? If we do not
deal with the issues that concern the world, we will only be talking to
ourselves, preaching to the choir. Nationalism, racism, and sexism
(based both on gender and orientation) are abroad in the world.
Privilege wears the mask of benevolence; hatred cloaks itself in
righteous zeal; and intolerance is instituted into law.

The world is stricken with a wound, and the church has the power to
heal it, but only when it faces its own woundedness and heals itself
first.

Virgin territory
----------------
Bishop Spong has issued his latest assault on the creed in a book on
the Virgin Mary. I've not yet read his book, but plan to. I've nothing
against assaults on the creed, and the creed usually comes out the
stronger for it. And if Bishop Spong is willing to continue his expert
impersonation of a late-nineteenth-century biblical critic, he could
hardly find a better role. As far as I'm concerned that was the high
point of biblical criticism. In any case, Spong's conclusions are
usually far more orthodox than the book jackets, promotional
materials, and reviews from the conservative church press would lead
one to believe.

Let me just throw in my two or three cents on the Virgin Birth. First
of all, it has little or nothing to do with Mary. I realize I may surprise
some of my more "Catholic" sisters and brothers, but I do not feel
that the extra-credal Marian doctrines have much to say one way or
the other to a lively Christian faith. As pious beliefs or devotions they
can support the Christian life, as can the example of Mary as the
queen of saints, and obedient servant of God. But as doctrine they are
adaiphora.

Most importantly, the Virgin Birth isn't a Marian but a
Christological doctrine. It defines the Incarnation. It expresses the
essence of the human nature of Christ; and far from being an
outmoded legend grafted onto the faith, the doctrine of the Virgin
Birth bears directly on issues as pressing, urgent, and current as the
ordination of women, and the nature of gender. For example, here is
a brief reflection I wrote some years ago, on what Richard Hooker
might have said about the ordination of women:

     They say that women may not receive the benefit of the sacrament
     of order. But how is this; seeing that they may receive the benefit
     of both the sacraments ordained by Christ, and may be, as they
     will admit, the ministers of baptism, which is the prime sacrament
     of the church's very being; and seeing that they may alike receive
     the benefits of the other sacraments of the church, in
     confirmation, penance, matrimony, and unction; wherefore then
     are they incapable of receiving benefit of this one only sacrament
     of orders? Is it that they are incapable of receiving this grace, as if
     they were a material unfit to receive the impress of a seal? What is
     the grace? and what that receives it? Is there somewhat in male
     humanity that exists not in the female? Is it not rather that male
     and female are qualities of the individual nature, and not of
     collective human nature? For humanity as a whole is neither male
     nor female, but each individual is either one or the other. There
     are not two human natures, one male and one female, but one
     human nature. To say otherwise were an error, since we know that
     all that is of human nature in woman comes from man, as Eve was
     taken wholly out of Adam; and further, all that is in human nature
     resides in woman, for Christ's humanity came to him wholly by
     way of his blessed mother, and she could not bestow that which
     she did not possess: and finally both man and woman come from
     God as made in God's image. (1 Cor 11.12) ...


Liberals who undermine the doctrine of the Virgin Birth are
disturbing the foundations of one of the most radical and important
supports for their own arguments. If God could make Christ from a
woman's flesh, so too can God make bread and wine Christ's flesh
and blood at a woman's hands. No men need apply.

I mean this last quite seriously. Some years ago a member of my
community, Sr Clare Connell, was ordained to the priesthood. I had
the honor of preaching at her ordination. A short while later, she
celebrated the eucharist for the gathered community for the first time.
This took place in the old chapel at Graymoor, a tiny monastic affair,
with a miniature altar up against the wall, a tiny wedding cake in
white marble carved with disturbingly lifelike cherubic faces. This was
hardly the first time I'd been to a mass celebrated by a woman, but
something about the "old position" and the calm authority of Clare's
voice struck me. When she said the words, "For in these last days you
sent him to be incarnate from the Virgin Mary, to be the Savior and
Redeemer of the world," it suddenly clicked, and I thought, "O my
God, we've made a terrible mistake: men shouldn't be priests! Only a
woman should share Mary's honor of bringing Christ's Body into the
world! The priest isn't _alter Christus_, but _alter Maria_!"

"Let my soul, like Mary, be thine earthly sanctuary!"

Consenting adults
-----------------
The election of an Episcopal Synod of America supporter as
coadjutor in the Diocese of Fort Worth came as no surprise. All the
candidates introduced by the nominating committee are active
members of the Synod, which, as we know, opposes the ordination of
women to the presbyterate or episcopate as a matter of standing
policy. A candidate was nominated from the floor by a contingent of
Fort Worthies who hoped to have a bishop more in tune with the rest
of the Episcopal Church; this stretched the election out to six ballots,
and brought their candidate about one-third of the votes in the end.
Some of these same folk have petitioned the bishops and standing
committees of the remaining dioceses not to consent to the Rev Jack
Iker's election.

The grounds for their action seem clear to me. In response to the
nominating committee's question, "Do you accept women as Priests
in the Episcopal Church?" Iker stated, "I am unable to accept women
as priests and bishops in the Episcopal Church. Such ordinations do
not provide an assurance of full apostolic authority, so I cannot
accept the sacramental acts of their ministry..."  At the same time,
Iker responded to the question on the role of the Holy Scripture in
this way:

     Yes, I do believe "the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
     Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things
     necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the
     doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church." I
     heartily affirmed this when I was ordained a deacon and again
     when I was ordained to the priesthood.

Yet, could he honestly take the same oath of conformity when
ordained to the episcopate? Does he in fact engage to conform to the
doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church. In fact he does not.
He does not accept as priests and bishops those whom the Episcopal
Church ordains as priests and bishops. The church says that women
are valid ministers of all the sacraments, being duly ordained (see
Articles XXIII and XXXVI). Iker says they are not. If this is not a
rejection of the church's doctrine, discipline and worship, what is?

I have never objected to the private conscientious difficulties people
might have with the ordination of women, though the church has
never made an official provision even for such conscientious objection
(the "Conscience Clause" was a unilateral act by the House of
Bishops). But it is another thing openly to contradict the teaching
and practice of the church as instituted in its canons and worship
formulary. It is one thing to say one does not like women priests, but
quite another to say that they are not priests.

Given this reality, I add my voice to those who call upon the bishops
and standing committees of this church not to consent to the
consecration of the Rev Jack L Iker as Bishop Coadjutor of Fort
Worth.

Keep the faith.

Tobias Stanislas Haller, BSG
President
The Catholic Fellowship of the Episcopal Church



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: <uunet!dragon!compuserve.com!76675.3032@esseye.si.com>
Received: from esseye.si.com by heinhu.si.com (MX V3.1C) with SMTP; Wed, 11 Nov
          1992 00:11:08 EST
Received: from uunet by esseye.si.com with uucp (Smail3.1.27.1 #5) id
          m0mpAGm-0001biC; Wed, 11 Nov 92 00:05 EST
Received: from emory.mathcs.emory.edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP
          (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA20313; Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:36:20
          -0500
Received: from dragon.UUCP by emory.mathcs.emory.edu (5.65/Emory_mathcs.3.3.23)
          via UUCP id AA07007 ; Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:36:04 -0500
Return-Path: dragon!compuserve.com!76675.3032
Received: by dragon.com (DECUS UUCP ///1.3-2/2.5/); Tue, 10 Nov 92 19:57:40 EST
Errors-To: uunet!dragon.COM!LIST_MGR
X-Listname: episcopal@dragon.com
Received: by dragon.com (MX V3.1C) with UUCP; Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:26:43 EST
Received: from andromeda.rutgers.edu by emory.mathcs.emory.edu
          (5.65/Emory_mathcs.3.3.23) via SMTP id AA28072 ; Tue, 10 Nov 92
          17:52:45 -0500
Received: by andromeda.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA07025; Tue, 10
          Nov 92 17:52:22 EST
Resent-Message-ID: <9211102252.AA07025@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
Received: from ihc.compuserve.com by andromeda.rutgers.edu
          (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA18031; Tue, 10 Nov 92 13:02:51 EST
Received: by ihc.compuserve.com (5.65/5.910516) id AA07643; Tue, 10 Nov 92
          13:02:48 -0500
Date: 10 Nov 92 12:54:58 EST
X-MX-Warning:   Warning -- Invalid "From" header.
From: Tobias S Haller <uunet!mathcs.emory.edu!76675.3032%compuserve.com>
X-MX-Warning:   Warning -- Invalid "Reply-To" header.
Reply-To: Tobias S Haller <uunet!mathcs.emory.edu!76675.3032%compuserve.com>
To: Louie Crew <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Something for the mailbag
X-MX-Warning:   Warning -- Invalid "Resent-To" header.
Resent-To: dragon.;@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 17:52:20 EST
X-MX-Warning:   Warning -- Invalid "Resent-From" header.
Resent-From: Louie Crew <uunet!mathcs.emory.edu!lcrew%andromeda.rutgers.edu>


-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 Brian Tillman               | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com
 Smiths Industries, Inc.     |           tillman_brian@si.com
 4141 Eastern Ave., MS129    | Hey, I said this stuff myself.
 Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------