"A womans place is in the church"

gigino

I read a great article in Newsweek magazine. It says "insular groups of men often do bad things. So why not break up the all-male club?"

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/02/a-woman-s-place-is-in-the-church.html

It says "More than 60 percent of American Catholics support the ordination of women". " In the U.S., 60 percent of Sunday massgoers are women; thus most of the contributions to the collection plate—$6 billion a year—are made by women. And yet the presence of women anywhere within the institutional power structure is virtually nil."
"Jesus, of course, said nothing about the role women should play in his future church. As the leader of a small and radical movement he invited all to join his band, including married women, single women, and prostitutes; and the Gospel accounts give women a special role. They are the ones who first encounter the resurrected Lord and report back to the men on this supernatural event."
"Women probably worked in the early church. In his letter to the Romans, written in the late 50s (A.D.), the Apostle Paul writes of a deacon named Phoebe; a "fellow worker" named Prisca; and "workers in the Lord" Tryphena and Tryphosa. He even mentions an "apostle" named Junia—a fact so shocking to generations of scribes who imagined that apostles could only be men that they intentionally misunderstood Paul's meaning. "Very, very frequently [Junia is] changed into a man's name," says Diarmaid MacCulloch, author most recently of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. "You get a sense that the early church is rowing away from women having positions of power." It would be a mistake, therefore, to view the first centuries of Christianity as any feminist heyday. Women were regarded almost universally as lower beings, over whom a good Christian man had to exercise control. "Our ideal," said Clement of Alexandria in the second century, "is not to experience desire at all." And—despite the fact that clerics and even popes were often married—women's ability to arouse sexual desire in Christian men relegated them to the role of the temptress Eve, in cahoots with Satan."

"By the 12th century, the separation of men and women in the church was complete. Clerical celibacy became mandatory in 1139, and in the great universities of Europe, where Christian intellectuals were establishing the foundations of modern philosophy, math, astronomy, science, literature, and theology, women were excluded completely. The only way thereafter for a Christian woman to gain prominence was as a prophet or a mystic, observes MacCulloch—and then her brethren might regard her as cracked."

Interesting stuff. In many ways we lag behind the Americans ...for better or worse, what happens there often arrives here years later. How long before 60% of Irish Catholics support the ordination of women, I wonder ? Anyone got any statistics on the support for the ordination of women here in Ireland ?

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello had it all explained a while ago. Jesus is male. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Therefore the Church is female. But women are also female. Priests are married to the Church, so to have women priests is spiritual lesbianism, and we simply can't have that.

Something like that anyway

gigino

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Priests are married to the Church, so to have women priests is spiritual lesbianism, and we simply can't have that.

Thank you for your answer. Who says we cant have that ? The men married to the male church of course. And why cant we have married Priests ( really married, instead of some imiginary marriage to an institution ) when in centuries past even some Popes were married?

And surely the Church is more male than female, as all the top people in it are male....and to have male Priests married to a male institution is homosexuality , if you claim "women priests is spiritual lesbianism" ? No wonder some people are emotionally and sexually messed up if they promise to be celibate to the institution they "marry" lol

AhSureTisGrand

gigino wrote: »

Thank you for your answer. Who says we cant have that ? The men married to the male church of course.

Because God told them?

I should probably add that I don't hold that view myself, but it's the most... interesting argument I've heard against female priests

gigino

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Because God told them?

"Jesus never said only men can be priests." is a phrase in the article...read the article in full to get the whole picture
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/02/a-woman-s-place-is-in-the-church.html

Fanny Cradock

To clarify - this is not turning into another sexual abuse thread.

gigino

Correct, this thread is about "A womans place is in the church"...the subject of the ordination of women. The newsweek article makes a strong argument / compelling case for having women in the church. Very interesting reading.

ArtSmart

$6 billion a year????

you are shiitting me?

gigino

ArtSmart wrote: »

$6 billion a year????

you are shiitting me?

THE USA is a very large country, and I am quoting direct from the newsweek article. Read it yourself.

Ballpark, top of the head reasoning ...6 billion a year sounds a lot, but its only approximately say 7 dollars a year from each man , woman and child in the States - if every man, woman + child there was RC and contributed. Of course most peple in the USA are not RC, but say if those that are chipped in say 2 dollars a week on average.. thats over 100 dollars a year...it all then adds up...
So the 6 billion dollars ( not euro ) a year in RCC collections in the USA does not sound at all unreasonable. It could even be more for all we know ( wink wink ). Especially as some wealthy people in the states - from all denominations - can be very generous. There's money in religion.

N.B. to raise 6 billion dollars a year in Ireland every Roman Catholic here would have to give about 13 to 14 hundred dollars a year - say a twenty euro note every week. That does not include gifts or legacies from old people.

Anyway to get back to the point, the article quoted " 60 percent of Sunday massgoers are women; thus most of the contributions to the collection plate—$6 billion a year—are made by women. And yet the presence of women anywhere within the institutional power structure is virtually nil."

Onesimus

Women can no more represent Christ on the alter than men can the Blessed Virgin Mary.

End of......

Onesimus

Robert ninja

Onesimus wrote: »

Women can no more represent Christ on the alter than men can the Blessed Virgin Mary.

End of......

Onesimus

Isn't that the quote from the awful woman in the notorious Intelligence square debate? It's just rationalisation. In other words, men can represent a being who can come to life while women can go ahead an represent women who give birth without having sex. Yeah, have fun with that.

gimmebroadband

<< 1 Timothy 2 >>

New American Standard Bible

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

gigino

gimmebroadband wrote: »

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

I thought just the extremist taliban thought like that ?

Onesimus wrote: »

Women can no more represent Christ on the alter than men can the Blessed Virgin Mary.

So only men can represent Christ on the alter ? Some of the men - even the main men - on the alter here in Ireland have'nt done an entirely honourable job eg Fr. Cleary + Bishop Casey, the two main men on the alter beside the Pope in Galway in 1979 ; both were revealed to be fathers of children later. And what has Mary to do with it, she was mentioned in the bible only a handful of times.

Onesimus

Robert ninja wrote: »

Isn't that the quote from the awful woman in the notorious Intelligence square debate? It's just rationalisation. In other words, men can represent a being who can come to life while women can go ahead an represent women who give birth without having sex. Yeah, have fun with that.

Catholics dont represent St.Mary they follow her example as she follows her sons. Thats known as ''The Imitation of Christ'' not ''the representation of Christ'' for priests stand in the person of Christ when celebrating mass.

Women have been given their role of being Christs bride.

And as for Giginos comment. Just because other priests did a bad job of it ( which is evident through history ) does not mean the theology of the priesthood is overthrown. It always remains the same.

lmaopml

Gigino, if you don't mind me asking, what denomination are you? Are you a priestess by any chance? It would be really nice to know from a regular by all means what denomination they are so that we can more fully communicate with eachother.

charlemont

It amazes me how loyal and obedient older Irish women are to the catholic church. Considering the church only wants them to make up the numbers, (and the breakfast too..)

alex73

I was going to start a considered response as to why the catholic church (and Orthodox for that matter) have only male priests...

But then again in the forum I would say 80% of posters haven't a clue as to the history of Catholic Church...so why waste my time.

Anyway.... Long thread short.. Christ called 12 apostles who happened to be men.. Don't ask me why.. don't know. There is male apostolic succession on the Church. We didn;t invent it, it was handed down.

Neither the catholic or Orthodox, or Coptic Churchs are going to change it. Don't waste your time asking them.

Some people see this as treating women as second class in the Church.. But reality is some of the shining lights of the Church were/are women. Who have reached far higher heights of sainthood than many priests.

Also not all men can be priest, we believe some are called.

So newsweek can write its stories. Faith is what it is.


One woman said once.. In the heart of the Church, I will be love.

PDN

alex73 wrote: »

Anyway.... Long thread short.. Christ called 12 apostles who happened to be men.. Don't ask me why.. don't know.

They all happened to be Jews too. So ......

lmaopml

Thanks Alex73. From, not exactly an 'ancient' or 'older' Irish Catholic woman, of which I am only but one... (Charlemont).... that really explains it.

It pisses me right off when women/men don't even understand the faith, but feel the need to 'equalise' and reform my faith, both as a female and a Catholic - it is my faith too as a 'woman', and I'm not looking for some kind of politically correct gender bender fantastic reason to see inequality, and nor do I need some ill guided well meaning person to tell me what I am missing out on! It's very plain and simple, and not in the least biased. A man will not gain membership to the Convent either.

It's almost as cynical as a man who would be regarded as a male chauvinist, or a woman who thinks she represents everybody but is ott feminist - and clearly doesn't represent everybody.

There are 'avenues' to explore if a person wants to be whatever they desire, but not 'here', with respect to it's female membership - thanks.

gigino

PDN wrote: »

They all happened to be Jews too. So ......

And supposing they all had beards and brown eyes.....Does that mean Jesus would have wanted all clerics for evermore to have beards and brown eyes ?

alex73 wrote: »

Neither the catholic or Orthodox, or Coptic Churchs are going to change it.

I'm not too sure about the consistency or otherwise of the Orthodox or Coptic Churches, but it is known the RCC changed a lot over the centuries , as it went along. eg celibacy, married Popes, indulgences etc.
It will change on ordination of women too ( 60% of American Catholics want it ) , but it will probably take 40 or 50 years.

Onesimus

gigino wrote: »

And supposing they all had beards and brown eyes.....Does that mean Jesus would have wanted all clerics for evermore to have beards and brown eyes ?

The Franciscan Friars seemed to think so..... ( litte joke there ) :D

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

I read a great article in Newsweek magazine. It says "insular groups of men often do bad things. So why not break up the all-male club?"

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/02/a-woman-s-place-is-in-the-church.html

It says "More than 60 percent of American Catholics support the ordination of women". " In the U.S., 60 percent of Sunday massgoers are women; thus most of the contributions to the collection plate—$6 billion a year—are made by women. And yet the presence of women anywhere within the institutional power structure is virtually nil."
"Jesus, of course, said nothing about the role women should play in his future church. As the leader of a small and radical movement he invited all to join his band, including married women, single women, and prostitutes; and the Gospel accounts give women a special role. They are the ones who first encounter the resurrected Lord and report back to the men on this supernatural event."
"Women probably worked in the early church. In his letter to the Romans, written in the late 50s (A.D.), the Apostle Paul writes of a deacon named Phoebe; a "fellow worker" named Prisca; and "workers in the Lord" Tryphena and Tryphosa. He even mentions an "apostle" named Junia—a fact so shocking to generations of scribes who imagined that apostles could only be men that they intentionally misunderstood Paul's meaning. "Very, very frequently [Junia is] changed into a man's name," says Diarmaid MacCulloch, author most recently of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. "You get a sense that the early church is rowing away from women having positions of power." It would be a mistake, therefore, to view the first centuries of Christianity as any feminist heyday. Women were regarded almost universally as lower beings, over whom a good Christian man had to exercise control. "Our ideal," said Clement of Alexandria in the second century, "is not to experience desire at all." And—despite the fact that clerics and even popes were often married—women's ability to arouse sexual desire in Christian men relegated them to the role of the temptress Eve, in cahoots with Satan."

"By the 12th century, the separation of men and women in the church was complete. Clerical celibacy became mandatory in 1139, and in the great universities of Europe, where Christian intellectuals were establishing the foundations of modern philosophy, math, astronomy, science, literature, and theology, women were excluded completely. The only way thereafter for a Christian woman to gain prominence was as a prophet or a mystic, observes MacCulloch—and then her brethren might regard her as cracked."

Interesting stuff. In many ways we lag behind the Americans ...for better or worse, what happens there often arrives here years later. How long before 60% of Irish Catholics support the ordination of women, I wonder ? Anyone got any statistics on the support for the ordination of women here in Ireland ?

The Catholic church has no authority to ordain women, and never will have, until God decrees otherwise.

Jesus only choose male apostles, even though pagan female priestesses were common at that time. Anyone else who wishes to ordain female priests, is free to start their own religion.

Why did Jesus only appoint male apostles ? We don't know.

We do know that the Mother of God was female, and no one elevates her, or any woman, as high as the Catholic Church does.

The last three Doctors of the Catholic Church were female.

In Catholicism, this name is given to a saint whom they recognize as having been of particular importance, particularly regarding their contribution to theology or doctrine.

It's interesting that anti-Catholics like to patronise Catholic women by telling them they are so very oppressed, instead of listening to them.

lmaopml

Gigino, are you a priestess? It would be really nice to know a little more about the beliefs of a fervant critic? If you wouldn't mind..? A little honesty goes a long way to take anybody serious, most of the Athiests on this forum are more than forthcoming and are absolutely honest in their approach from the onset - to their credit as far as dialogue is concerned imo.:)

johnmcdnl

historically men would have been priests as it was a position of power - historically only men got power nearly anywhere bar the odd exception here and there...

the church and most of it's teachings are based on what was relevant 100s of years ago hence only men are allowed be priests...

women should be allowed become priests but historically the church is very very very reluctant to change any of it's rules for anyone unless they absolutely have too... it'll be a long long time before we see the church ordaining women priests I reckon...

gigino

lmaopml wrote: »

Gigino, are you a priestess?

No, I am a catholic. You can be Irish and still criticize the Irish government you know;). However if someone was a priestess I would have an open mind on that - live + let live. As long as she did not harm other people ( or animals for that matter:) ) she would be perfectly ok as far as I'm concerned. I have friends of different religions and none. There are good and bad people everywhere.

johnmcdnl wrote: »

the church and most of it's teachings are based on what was relevant 100s of years ago hence only men are allowed be priests...

+1. Thankfully the rest of society has moved on. It can and does change though. In the era of married Popes, who would have thought todays Pope would be celibate ?

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

No, I am a catholic.

Are you a Roman Catholic ?

If so . .

Do you keep the five precepts of the Church ?
Do you properly understand the basis of the five precepts ?
Do you believe and concur with all the dogma's of the Church ?

If not, you can make believe and call yourself whatever you want, but you’re not a Roman Catholic.
At best you're a lapsed one.

gigino

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

The Catholic church has no authority to ordain women, and never will have, until God decrees otherwise.

Jesus only choose male apostles

Is this the same church that has changed with the times, and did God decree otherwise ? Based on the customs of the times, it is assumed by many that like Peter, most of the Apostles were married and had families. It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men.;)

lmaopml

What sort of a Catholic are you Gigino? Surely you are not ashamed to say? 'Exactly' what sort of a Catholic do you believe you are? Please clarify.

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

Is this the same church that has changed with the times, and did God decree otherwise ? Based on the customs of the times, it is assumed by many that like Peter, most of the Apostles were married and had families. It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men.;)

Marriage is not the same as ordination.

The Church introduced celibacy in the 4th-11th Century, and it can remove it.
But Jesus had a very clear policy of choosing only male apostles.
Therefore the Church is free to remove or introduce celibacy for it's apostles, but not to ordain women.

gigino

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

But Jesus had a very clear policy of choosing only male apostles.

From the link I provided earlier:
"In his letter to the Romans, written in the late 50s (A.D.), the Apostle Paul writes of a deacon named Phoebe; a "fellow worker" named Prisca; and "workers in the Lord" Tryphena and Tryphosa. He even mentions an "apostle" named Junia—a fact so shocking to generations of scribes who imagined that apostles could only be men that they intentionally misunderstood Paul's meaning. "Very, very frequently [Junia is] changed into a man's name," says Diarmaid MacCulloch, author most recently of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. "You get a sense that the early church is rowing away from women having positions of power".

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

From the link I provided earlier:
"In his letter to the Romans, written in the late 50s (A.D.), the Apostle Paul writes of a deacon named Phoebe; a "fellow worker" named Prisca; and "workers in the Lord" Tryphena and Tryphosa. He even mentions an "apostle" named Junia—a fact so shocking to generations of scribes who imagined that apostles could only be men that they intentionally misunderstood Paul's meaning. "Very, very frequently [Junia is] changed into a man's name," says Diarmaid MacCulloch, author most recently of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. "You get a sense that the early church is rowing away from women having positions of power".

Junia the apostle ? The old deceptions are the best eh.

Is that it ? 1 possibly female name mentioned in an ambiguous way in the same sentence as the word apostles ? Not much of a case.

In Rom 16:7 Paul states that Andronicus and Junia were "of note among the apostles," i.e. that Andronicus and Junia were "well known among the Apostles" meaning "well known to the Apostles".

Check the bible again, Jesus did not ordain any female apostles.

You haved claimed to be Catholic, what type are you ? Roman, Orthodox, Eastern, or Lapsed ?

gigino

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Jesus did not ordain any female apostles.

And if you claim he only ordained Jews of middle eastern origin, is that an excuse for blacks or causasians or orientals never to be ordained ?

eyescreamcone

Women are not treated well in the RCC.
This is 100% to do with property and inheritance issues.
The RCC don't want children to leach money from them (how ironic?)


As for not making women priests...
Surely the Pope (when he puts on his infallible hat) can change or make up anything he likes.

Didn't Pope Pius XII decide, while wearing his infallible hat (must get one of those) that Mary ascended into heaven.
This was not written in the bible.
He just decided that it happened.

This decision was made...wait for it... in 1950.

Obviously he can make up stories and thus rules when he feels like.
They have been doing this since they got the gang together.

I see no reason why he can't put on the hat and change the rules again.

gigino

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I see no reason why he can't put on the hat and change the rules again.

I agree, but do'nt worry , change will eventually come. Some of his predecessors were married, he is not. He spent his youth with the swastika on his arm instead of being married ( when millions of his countrymen were being sent to the concentration camps / gas chambers....so I will not take moral direction from him ).
If the church changed the rule and practice on issues like celibacy it will change the rules to allow women be ordained in to this " men only" organisation.

prinz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Women are not treated well in the RCC. This is 100% to do with property and inheritance issues.
The RCC don't want children to leach money from them (how ironic?)

When it comes to married priests it's also to do with the fact that it is extremely difficult for someone to balance a marriage and/or kids with a 24/7 job. Neither the wife/family nor the community benefit fully.

prinz

gigino wrote: »

He spent his youth with the swastika on his arm instead of being married ( when millions of his countrymen were being sent to the concentration camps / gas chambers....so I will not take moral direction from him )..

LOL, haven't got a clue.

eyescreamcone

prinz wrote: »

When it comes to married priests it's also to do with the fact that it is extremely difficult for someone to balance a marriage and/or kids with a 24/7 job. Neither the wife/family nor the community benefit fully.

24/7
You having a laff, mate!!!

prinz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

24/7
You having a laff, mate!!!

What do you think the priest says if somebody calls him at 4 in the morning and say X is seriously ill/has been in an accident and wants the last rites..... call back in office hours?

PDN

Moderator's Instructions

This thread is about the role of women in the Church. Anyone wanted to vent off-topic spleen about other issues should refrain or they will join gigino in receiving a ban.

mehfesto

prinz wrote: »

What do you think the priest says if somebody calls him at 4 in the morning and say X is seriously ill/has been in an accident and wants the last rites..... call back in office hours?

I'd imagine it wouldn't be un-similar to a married/child-raising surgeon or Consultant doctor getting a call at that hour with the same problem at the end of the phone.

No reason it can't be done.

prinz

mehfesto wrote: »

I'd imagine it wouldn't be un-similar to a married/child-raising surgeon or Consultant doctor getting a call at that hour with the same problem at the end of the phone.
No reason it can't be done.

How many surgeons/consultants do you know who work on a 24 hour basis?

mehfesto

prinz wrote: »

How many surgeons/consultants do you know who work on a 24 hour basis?

I know quite a few surgeons that have to be called in for serious cases, or some that stay on call for 24 hours. Or indeed those that travel to work when an accident has happened, the patient has died and they have to 'harvest' (their term not mine) the body for organs. It's not common, but it happens. They have a married home-life.

Granted it's much less common with consultants, but it can happen.

Is your point really that by having a job where you are on-call 24/7 you can never be in a relationship?

prinz

mehfesto wrote: »

Is your point really that by having a job where you are on-call 24/7 you can never be in a relationship?

No, I said it was difficult, not impossible.. right here....

it is extremely difficult for someone to balance a marriage and/or kids with a 24/7 job

It can also be difficult to manage a relationship where one or both parties are working in shifts for example.

mehfesto

Indeed it can be. That said there are a hell of a lot of married doctors out there with kids and they get by just fine. No doubting it's tough, but nobody said it was easy.

It's not impossible though...

alex73

lmaopml wrote: »

Thanks Alex73. From, not exactly an 'ancient' or 'older' Irish Catholic woman, of which I am only but one... (Charlemont).... that really explains it.

It pisses me right off when women/men don't even understand the faith, but feel the need to 'equalise' and reform my faith, both as a female and a Catholic - it is my faith too as a 'woman', and I'm not looking for some kind of politically correct gender bender fantastic reason to see inequality, and nor do I need some ill guided well meaning person to tell me what I am missing out on! It's very plain and simple, and not in the least biased. A man will not gain membership to the Convent either.

It's almost as cynical as a man who would be regarded as a male chauvinist, or a woman who thinks she represents everybody but is ott feminist - and clearly doesn't represent everybody.

There are 'avenues' to explore if a person wants to be whatever they desire, but not 'here', with respect to it's female membership - thanks.

I know.. Sadly outsiders of the faith they see what they want to see in the Church. As Christians and Catholics we are all called equally to love God with all our hearts and to do what he wants of us. Loving Christ means to humbly follow him. Thing is many don't have faith, and without faith of course it does not make sense.

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

And if you claim he only ordained Jews of middle eastern origin, is that an excuse for blacks or causasians or orientals never to be ordained ?

The apostles ordained all races, but not women.

gimmebroadband

alex73 wrote: »

I know.. Sadly outsiders of the faith they see what they want to see in the Church. As Christians and Catholics we are all called equally to love God with all our hearts and to do what he wants of us. Loving Christ means to humbly follow him. Thing is many don't have faith, and without faith of course it does not make sense.

When outsiders talk about 'equality' in the Church, then it's all about US and not about GOD!!

Festus

mehfesto wrote: »

Indeed it can be. That said there are a hell of a lot of married doctors out there with kids and they get by just fine. No doubting it's tough, but nobody said it was easy.

It's not impossible though...

There's also a shed load of divorced doctors out there. Finding a wife prepared to accept 50% or less is a bit difficult but when the job demands 100%... well...

mehfesto

Festus wrote: »

There's also a shed load of divorced doctors out there. Finding a wife prepared to accept 50% or less is a bit difficult but when the job demands 100%... well...

There's also a lot of divorced unemployed people out there.

Jobs don't break up marriages, not putting time and effort into the relationship does. You can be surgeon working 48 hours straight and still be the best husband/wife in another persons eyes if you put the effort into the relationship. It's difficult, but as I've already said, it's not impossible.

While I accept, to an extent, priests are on call 24/7, that's no reason stopping them from loving another human being in a mariage. Surely Protestant minister face similar scenarios and yet they can keep a steady marriage.

But I feel we're getting off topic - this is about women in the church, not married priests, right?

gigino

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

The apostles ordained all races

not in the bible, they did not. It did not really arise but I do not think that part of the world was truly multi-racial then ? All races would include aboriginies for example, not many of thenm knocking about the middle east then ? And anyway, just because the Apostles done something, is that the only way Jesus would have wanted it done ? If you think the modern Christian church should be as similar as to the early Christian church , you would argue for celibacy to be dropped, as many of the early Popes etc were married.

Festus

mehfesto wrote: »

But I feel we're getting off topic - this is about women in the church, not married priests, right?

Thank Giginio for that. He took it off topic in post #3