Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The Queen - Inconsistent? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I read recently that the Queen supports gay priests but opposes women priests. Now, I ask you: Where's the logic in that? It seems a terribly inconsistent position to hold.

    Answers on a postcard.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    I read recently that the Queen supports gay priests but opposes women priests. Now, I ask you: Where's the logic in that? It seems a terribly inconsistent position to hold.

    Answers on a postcard.
    Why is it inconsistent?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Because the argument to support both is the same - the vague inclusiveness of Jesus' love, as opposed to the specific rules and regulations and various disjointed bits of Paul's Outbox that appear directly to contradict that inclusiveness.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    I read recently that the Queen supports gay priests but opposes women priests. Now, I ask you: Where's the logic in that? It seems a terribly inconsistent position to hold.

    Answers on a postcard.
    Probably because 51% of Brits support gay priests, but only 49% support female priests. The Royal Family doesn't dare have a brain and voice any opinion outside of the mainstream (except when Charles makes a jackass of himself by trying to be more PC than usual).
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    I read recently that the Queen supports gay priests but opposes women priests. Now, I ask you: Where's the logic in that? It seems a terribly inconsistent position to hold.

    Answers on a postcard.
    You have to remember that the queen is surrounded by 'gay' flunkies.

    All the royal palaces are renowned for being hotbeds of homosexuality, therefore it is quite natural to her, whereas women priests holding positions of authority (such as herself - and she didn't like Margaret Thatcher either!) aren't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Probably because 51% of Brits support gay priests, but only 49% support female priests. The Royal Family doesn't dare have a brain and voice any opinion outside of the mainstream (except when Charles makes a jackass of himself by trying to be more PC than usual).
    They are practically prohibited from doing so. The Queen for example is expected to be impartial. That doesn't mean she holds no opinions of her own.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I LOVE THE QUEEN!

    That's my most vaccuous contribution ever! But I don't care. I think she's marvelous!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    I LOVE THE QUEEN!

    That's my most vaccuous contribution ever! But I don't care. I think she's marvelous!
    ...and we all know why, don't we!

    Nice to see you back on D&D, gideon.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Gay priests aren't specifically ruled out in the Bible I think.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Considering gay PEOPLE are "ruled out" in the Bible, I would have thought the "priest" qualifier is immaterial. The alternative (taking the right-wing Christian view for a moment) is to have unrepentant sinners leading Mass.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    I LOVE THE QUEEN!

    That's my most vaccuous contribution ever! But I don't care. I think she's marvelous!
    She is. The concept of monarchy in general is one I am ambivalent about, but I can't fault the Queen.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Where did you hear this? I have my doubts about the truth of this source, and certainly I doubt that the Queen would want actively gay priests (as in practising homosexuals).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Considering gay PEOPLE are "ruled out" in the Bible, I would have thought the "priest" qualifier is immaterial. The alternative (taking the right-wing Christian view for a moment) is to have unrepentant sinners leading Mass.
    No, participating in homosexual acts is the sin, rather than being gay.

    Presumably if a gay man was to remain celibate then there would be no reason to exclude him.

    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    Where did you hear this? I have my doubts about the truth of this source, and certainly I doubt that the Queen would want actively gay priests (as in practising homosexuals).
    I echo this post completely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    I read recently that the Queen supports gay priests but opposes women priests. Now, I ask you: Where's the logic in that? It seems a terribly inconsistent position to hold.

    Answers on a postcard.
    I don't see any inconsistency. I'm also suspicious that the Queen would make her position on the issue public.

    There can only be an inconsistency if you know what the Queens position is on such issues. If she claims to love gays and hate women then it's completely consistent that she would support gay priests and not women priests. If she claims to love everyone then it would be inconsistent.

    The Queen's alright by me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    No, participating in homosexual acts is the sin, rather than being gay.

    Presumably if a gay man was to remain celibate then there would be no reason to exclude him.
    Well, priests are no less sinless generally than anybody else. So, even if a homosexual priest was not able to remain celebate all he'd be doing is sinning along with everybody else.

    The question therefore is does the Bible state that one must be sinless to minister in the Lord's name? Now consider some of the people we encounter in the Bible who did minister in the Lord's name who's track record for saintliness is questionable - tax collectors, thiefs, etc etc.

    From this angle alone I think the argument for homosexual priests is stronger than for women priests which are very clearly excluded according to Holy Scripture.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, priests are no less sinless generally than anybody else. So, even if a homosexual priest was not able to remain celebate all he'd be doing is sinning along with everybody else.

    The question therefore is does the Bible state that one must be sinless to minister in the Lord's name? Now consider some of the people we encounter in the Bible who did minister in the Lord's name who's track record for saintliness is questionable - tax collectors, thiefs, etc etc.

    From this angle alone I think the argument for homosexual priests is stronger than for women priests which are very clearly excluded according to Holy Scripture.
    That would appear to be an argument placing murderers above women in some kind of pecking-order; the former are only sinners, and of course no-one ought to cast the first stone and prevent them becoming priests, but the latter are WOMEN, and, oh boy, that's just WRONG.

    How are the two prohibitions phrased? Well, the NIV has "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" for the women-priests question. For a start, that's St. Paul's demand, not God's. "I do not permit", not "God does not permit".

    And for the homosexuality it's good old Leviticus. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Immediately preceding that we read that this is God talking to Moses, so straight away there's a higher authority than Paul's at work.

    Paul does not say there is anything "detestable" about women priests; he merely says he personally does not allow them. The more forceful and definite terms of the Old Testament extract, coupled with the fact that it's God talking, make the case against homosexuals in general stronger than that against women priests.

    I accept the point that merely being a sinner should not and cannot prevent someone from becoming a priest - but if that is true then it implies that being a woman is worse than being a sinner, since the former state disqualifies one from priesthood while the latter does not. This is, or seems to me, to be ridiculous. Women fall, or are tripped, at the very first hurdle.

    It seems outrageous that the Bible would put one of the groups it condemns the most - homosexuals - ABOVE, say, the Virgin Mary. And yes, she WAS a sinner, in case anyone's thinking about claiming she was perfect. She was human, and therefore a sinner.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, priests are no less sinless generally than anybody else. So, even if a homosexual priest was not able to remain celebate all he'd be doing is sinning along with everybody else.
    True enough. But to be an openly practising homosexual who says "yes, I have anal sex with other men... and what's more I intend to do it again" must be differentiated from a celibate gay priest who may have his lapses and repent for them with the honest intention of remaining celibate.

    After that, I completely agree with you.

    I accept the point that merely being a sinner should not and cannot prevent someone from becoming a priest - but if that is true then it implies that being a woman is worse than being a sinner, since the former state disqualifies one from priesthood while the latter does not. This is, or seems to me, to be ridiculous. Women fall, or are tripped, at the very first hurdle.
    I don't believe it's a question of one being better or worse than another, it's simply that women should not do it in the eyes of old St P.

    Having different roles does not imply inferiority in this case.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    True enough. But to be an openly practising homosexual who says "yes, I have anal sex with other men... and what's more I intend to do it again" must be differentiated from a celibate gay priest who may have his lapses and repent for them with the honest intention of remaining celibate.

    After that, I completely agree with you.
    Does a celibate gay priest count as homosexual? Similarly, do R.C. priests count as heterosexual, or should "celibate" be an entirely separate category? Yes, there are the temptations to stop being celibate, but those who resist them successfully seem to me to fall into neither the "homo" box nor the "hetero" one, because the "-sexual" half of the word appears not to be fulfilled.

    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    I don't believe it's a question of one being better or worse than another, it's simply that women should not do it.

    Having different roles does not imply inferiority in this case.
    "Different roles" is a reasonable enough line to take on its own, if for the moment we forget St. Paul and just think about a society in which it's impossible for everyone to do everything, but I don't think his demand "she must be silent" counts as a legitimate role. And the "I do not permit a woman to be in authority over a man" line of 1 Timothy 2:12 sounds more like "inferior" than "different".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Does a celibate gay priest count as homosexual? Similarly, do R.C. priests count as heterosexual, or should "celibate" be an entirely separate category? Yes, there are the temptations to stop being celibate, but those who resist them successfully seem to me to fall into neither the "homo" box nor the "hetero" one, because the "-sexual" half of the word appears not to be fulfilled.
    Hmm, a tricky one. Although wouldn't your provision tend to exclude a virgin from being of any sexuality? That would seem a bit of an extreme position to take...

    Doesn't much matter to the central question though really, does it?

    "Different roles" is a reasonable enough line to take on its own, if for the moment we forget St. Paul and just think about a society in which it's impossible for everyone to do everything, but I don't think his demand "she must be silent" counts as a legitimate role. And the "I do not permit a woman to be in authority over a man" line of 1 Timothy 2:12 sounds more like "inferior" than "different".
    The absolute prohibition on women speaking in church is generally considered by theologians not to be the words of Paul himself but added in later. I generally uphold this as it would have contradicted his 'wear a hat when you're speaking in church, girls' order. It would be an odd position for him to take.

    I suppose the not having authority over a man point does seem to make a judgement about superiority and inferiority. However given that society up until even quite recently in this "advanced" western nation held this view I think it must be taken more as a result of the times than of his belief in God's will. He was after all advising people on the way to run their churches, so it would be fair enough to include advice that did not have Divine authority. And I believe at the time I would be a fairly sound idea - even today the issue of woman priests raises emotions, imagine what it could've done back then.

    We are talking about a man who echoed the sentiment that "there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ." I think assuming him to be a complete sexist would be wrong.

    This is the problem with theology, it seems that nothing can be taken at face value and that there are a million and one interpretations of every sentence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    How are the two prohibitions phrased? Well, the NIV has "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" for the women-priests question. For a start, that's St. Paul's demand, not God's. "I do not permit", not "God does not permit".
    Herein you raise an interesting point viz under what authority does St Paul minister? For those of us of the "catholic" tradition (note use of lower case "c" to distingish from Roman Catholic") St Paul was commissioned by God himself and therefore speaks authoritatively for the church. This I understand is difficult for our protestant brothers to accept.

    Further, from an Orthodox perspective, the Bible is divinely inspired, meaning that the various authors including St Paul, have written down the will of God.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.