cms@gatech.edu (12/04/90)
Greetings! Here is another essay I wrote from a course I took in
Religion and Ethics. I hope you enjoy it.
Saint Thomas Aquinas on
Women's Ordination to the Priesthood
A Response to
Mary O'Connell
Discovered and Compiled by
Cindy Smith, Esq.
GOD: Thomas!
THOMAS: Yes, God.
GOD: Thomas, we have another controversy brewing on earth. I want
you to look into the issue of women's ordination.
THOMAS: But, God, I already discussed that issue in my Summa
Theologica Q. 39 Art 2 Suppl. Women cannot be priests
because women are in a state of subjection....
GOD: Look at it again.
THOMAS: Yes, God.
ANOTHER STRANGE DOCUMENT SHOWED UP ON MY COMPUTER IN MY PERSONAL
FILES LAST NIGHT. THE COMPILER MAKES NO JUDGMENTS AS TO ITS
AUTHENTICITY, HOWEVER, THE AUTHOR APPEARS TO BE A GLORIFIED SAINT
THOMAS AQUINAS.
Interlude
THOMAS: I've repented, God.
GABRIEL: Uh, God, that's not allowed. You're only supposed to repent
on earth.
GOD: I've repented of my wrath in heaven lots of times. Thomas can
repent in heaven too if he wants to. I make the rules.
THOMAS: Thanks, God.
We must next consider the impediments to this sacrament. Under this
head there are six points of inquiry: (1) Whether the female sex is
an impediment to receiving this sacrament?....The remaining queries
are not addressed in this extract.
First Article
Whether the Female Sex Is an Impediment
to Receiving Orders
We proceed thus to the First Article: --
Objection 1. It would seem that women cannot be priests because women
are in a state of subjection to men. In 1 Tim 2:12 it is said, "I do
not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must
be quiet."
Objection 2. The recipient of a sacrament must meet certain criteria
before being eligible to receive the sacrament, otherwise one may
receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other
things are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for
its lawfulness, otherwise one receives the sacrament but not the
reality of the sacrament. Being male is one of the criteria for
receiving the sacrament not only in the first way but also in the
second way. Thus, although a bishop might lay hands on a woman, the
Holy Spirit will not "take" because the conferral of Orders is a
sacrament, a sacrament being the sign, not simply the thing, but also
the signification of the thing. In administering the sacrament of
Extreme Unction it is necessary that the recipient of the sacrament
meet the criteria of being sick; in administering the sacrament of
Orders it is necessary that the recipient of the sacrament meet the
criteria of being male.
Obj. 3. The male sex is necessary for the lawful conferral of Orders
but not for the validity of the sacrament. As I noted in Q. 39 Art 2.
Suppl. "even in the Decretals (cap. Mulieres, dist. 32; cap.
Diaconissam, 27, qu, i) mention is made of deaconesses and
priestesses. But deaconess there denotes a woman who shares in some
act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies in the Church; and
priestess (presbytera) means a widow, for the word presbyter means
elder."
Obj. 4. Mary O'Connell notes that opponents of women's ordination
often state that Jesus ordained twelve apostles, who were all men, and
thus did not intend women to be priests. Accepting women priests
would imply that the Church believes Jesus made a mistake, which is
unthinkable.
On the contrary, women are not in a state of subjection because the
blood of Jesus Christ washes away all sin, including original sin.
Eve sinned; her punishment was to be subject to her man. Thus, all
women are in a state of subjection. Our punishment for our sins is
for men to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow and for women
to give birth in pain and to be in subjection to men. But the blood
of Jesus Christ washes away all our sins, therefore, women are no
longer in subjection to men, for there is no "Greek or Jew, slave or
free, male or female, we are all one in Christ Jesus." It is more
important to be in the spiritual likeness of Christ than the physical
likeness of Christ.
I reply that, some will say men still earn their bread by the sweat
of their brow. I answer that, Jesus said that Scripture says, "It is
not by bread alone that man lives but by every word that proceeds from
the mouth of God." To continue to regard earning bread by the sweat
of one's brow as a punishment for sin is to be like the Gentiles who
are concerned about such temporal things as these; we should rather
concern ourselves with the forgiveness of our sins which comes from
heaven. Wherefore also a woman should not dwell upon the pain of
childbirth but rather upon the joy that cometh in the morning. So,
woman should not be concerned about her subjection to man, but rather
should teach, preach, prophesy, administer, and perform all priestly
functions as she is called to do, or whatever other thing she has been
called to do according to the gifts God has given her, without regard
to such temporal matters as subjection to men.
Reply Obj. 1. I did not allow women to teach or to have authority
over her husband; this was not intended to mean that woman could not
have authority over any man. Furthermore, as I once noted in
Q. 39 Art. 2 Suppl. Obj. 1, "the office of prophet is greater than the
office of a priest, since a prophet stands midway between God and
priests, just as the priest does between God and people. Now the
office of prophet was sometimes granted to women, as may be gathered
from 4 Kings 22:14. Therefore the office of priest also may be
competent to them." It is said, "prophecy is not a sacrament but a
gift from God." Prophets give what has been given to them by God. A
sacrament is a manifestation of God. Manifestations of God are
profound by definition. Thus, there are technically an unlimited
number of sacraments. Therefore, prophecy is a Sacrament conferred
upon an individual by God himself outside the confines of the Church
although, technically, the Church is the Body of Christ, so nothing is
actually outside its confines. Rather, prophecy is a sacrament given
to individuals outside the confines of the authority or hierarchy of
the Church. Therefore, women receive a sacrament (that of prophecy)
which is actually higher than the sacrament of Orders. As a result,
women cannot be prohibited from receiving the lower sacrament.
Furthermore, Pauline instructions in Church matters are guidelines
and must be used as such. As John Calvin notes in his Institutes on
the Christian religion, Book IV 10.31, "What sort of freedom of
conscience could there be in such excessive attentiveness and caution?
Indeed, it will be very clear when we consider that these are no
fixed and permanent sanctions by which we are bound, but outward
rudiments for human weakness. Although not all of us need them, we
all use them, for we are mutually bound, one to another, to nourish
mutual love. This may be recognized in [these] examples [prayer on
bent knees, decency in burial of the dead, administration of
sacraments in dignity, forbidding women to teach in the church (I Cor.
14:34), and the like]. What? Does religion consist in a woman's
shawl, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with a bare head? Is
that decree of Paul's concerning silence so holy that it cannot be
broken without great offense? Is there in bending the knee or in
burying a corpse any holy rite that cannot be neglected without
offense? Not at all....the established custom of the region, or
humanity itself and the rule of modesty, dictate what is to be done or
avoided in these matters....This saying of Paul's ought to satisfy us:
that it is not our custom to contend, or that of the churches of God
[I Cor. 11:16]." Here I agree with Paul, "if anyone is inclined to be
argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of
God." Paul clearly indicates that his instructions are suggestions
and not to be taken as written in stone. If a custom falls out of
favor, there is no sense in maintaining a dinosaur for old time's
sake. Rather, his instructions, like the Christ from whom he comes,
are to be written on are hearts from which love, not law, should flow.
Conferral of Orders grants authority to teach, heal, minister to the
Church, etc., in a position of pre-eminence. Many women have been
granted such authority in Scripture including Deborah (Judges 2),
Phoebe (Romans 16:1), Priscilla (wife of Aquila, Romans 16:3), and
perhaps Junia (Romans 16:7). If you're eligible to be a Christian,
you're eligible to receive any Sacrament the Church has to offer. If
you're eligible to die as a martyr for the faith, you're eligible to
be a priest in the Church for which you are dying. All people can
relate to Christ, Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female;
therefore, since all can relate to Christ, all should be able to help
others relate to Christ as well, whether through teaching Bible or
administering the Sacraments.
Reply Obj. 2. The power conferred in Orders rests in the soul.
However, sex is not a characteristic of the soul, but of the body.
Therefore, sex is irrelevant in determining the criteria requisite for
the recipient of Orders.
If women cannot receive the Sacrament of Orders, why can they receive
any Sacrament? To receive the Body and Blood of Christ is to become
one with God. To be baptized means that one has been baptized into
the death of Christ and rise again as the Holy Spirit gives birth to
Christ within us. It follows, then, that in the Sacrament of Baptism
one becomes not simply the thing but also the signification of the
thing, namely, Christ. In Christ there is no male or female but
rather we are one in Christ Jesus. Therefore, while neither men nor
women may receive the Sacrament of Orders, but only those who have
been made in the perfect likeness of Christ via Baptism. To say that
women rise differently than men as Christ is to blaspheme the Word of
God. It is to suggest that a different Christ, a different god, rises
within women than men, this god/christ being an unworthy recipient of
the Sacrament of Orders. Since we believe the same Christ rises
within every baptized human being, regardless of sex, we should, as
our Lord noted, "not worry about how or what...you are to say; for the
Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you should say"
(Mark 12:11b -- 12). Thus, neither males nor females actually teach
in churches, but rather the Holy Spirit who dwells within each of us.
Therefore men should not be concerned whether a man or a woman is
teaching them or preaching to them or administering sacraments to them
or holding authority over them, for it is neither the man nor the
woman who teaches, preaches, administers sacraments, or holds
authority, but the Holy Spirit of our God within them. We are a
Sacramental Church.
Reply Obj. 3. Deacons are deacons, not deaconesses; a poor
translation found in the first letter of Paul to Timothy (see below)
as well as his letter to the Romans (see below). Even if Orders
cannot be conferred on women lawfully, if done, the ordination is
valid and she has really received the Sacrament. This should not
lawfully be done, but if done, cannot be taken away. For this to
become a lawful practice, canon law needs to be changed pursuant to an
interpretation of Scripture as noted above. Also, 1 Tim. 3:11 refers
to women deacons, not deaconesses, adjuring them to be "dignified, not
slanderers,...temperate and faithful,...married only once,...and
manage their children and their households well." If one may be
ordained deacon, there is no substantial difference in receipt of the
Holy Spirit in being ordained presbyter and bishop. The question,
substantially, is again one of authority, but, again, it is the Holy
Spirit which holds authority not the person. The Holy Spirit is a
gift from God meant to be used judiciously with love.
Reply Obj. 4. If we take too literal an interpretation of Christ's
life and practices, we end up making a requirement that recipients of
Orders be male, Jewish, bearded, and married, whose occupations are
either carpenter, fisherman, or tent maker. Of course, since
recipients of Holy Orders are baptized, and Christ himself was a
carpenter, all recipients of Orders are male, bearded, married (to
Christ), Jewish carpenters. To be married to Christ, of course, is to
be one with Christ. To be one with Christ means that every one of us,
regardless of sex, is exactly the same as Christ, and, thus, no
distinctions can truly be made among believing Christians between
males and females, including the conferral of Orders.
Further comments: Tradition determines the Church's interpretation of
Scripture and practices. Therefore, knowing and understanding early
Church practices in this regard are essential to determine whether
ordination of women is theologically sound. Early Christian groups
with women priests were condemned as heretical, however, this does not
mean that all groups with women in authority were heretical (cf. above
discussion on Phoebe, Priscilla, and Junia). It should be noted that
in some instances, Paul favors women in authority and in others, he
disapproves of women in authority; he is inconsistent. This is
probably in keeping with Paul's earlier admonition that individual
churches should be allowed to maintain individual customs; his
attitude seemed to be one of "convert as many people as possible,
don't rock the boat with regard to social customs, but keep the church
afloat long enough for the ark to find dry land and a mountain top to
settle on." Thus, if churches didn't allow women to speak, he adjured
his readers not to allow women to speak; Paul's own church did not
allow women to teach or hold authority, so Paul did not himself allow
it; the church in Rome obviously did allow women to hold positions of
authority and Paul encouraged those to whom he wrote to abide by this
custom and respect her authority. Women can be priests, women cannot
be priests, according to the custom of the individual church, and "if
anyone objects, we have no such custom, and neither do any of our
churches." It should be noted, in passing, that the Episcopal Church
maintains precisely this position with some churches disallowing women
to preach but most churches, in keeping with the official position of
the Episcopal Church as a whole, allowing women to preach and
administer sacraments in a priestly role.
Church beliefs on the subordination of the role of women is rooted in
Pauline statements regarding women's status with respect to Genesis.
In my Summa Theologica Pt. 1 Q. 92 Art. 1 Reply Obj. 1., I said, "As
regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for
the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect
likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes
from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition,
or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind,
which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv. 2)."
In light of new knowledge, it now seems to me that, as mentioned
above, we are baptized into the death of Christ, and rise again as the
Holy Spirit gives birth to Christ within us (cf. Gospel of John
1:12-13, 3:5-8, Romans 6:3-11, Gal. 3:26). Therefore, since Christ
makes no distinction between male and female concerning his rising
again within us, and since it is Christ inside us who lives and
operates as High Priest enabling priests to administer Sacraments, it
is therefore the male Christ, who is Wisdom (female, cf. Pr. 4:7,
Psalm 111:10, Ecclesiasticus 1:1) within every human being (male or
female) that receives Orders and administers the Sacraments. Thus,
Orders cannot be logically denied to women, because Christ Himself is
the One within each man or woman to whom holy Orders is actually
conferred. To say that women lack a "natural resemblance to Christ"
is to deny that women can be baptized into the likeness of Christ and
become one with Christ. I doubt, in the scheme of things, whether a
person can urinate standing up has any real relevance to
qualifications for the priesthood.
Indeed, in lieu of the eunuchs who were given full participation in
the sacraments, where Jewish tradition prohibited participation, it
seems unlikely to me that they should be barred from the priesthood
simply because their physical likeness to Christ is incomplete (or
different). In addition, Matthew 19:12 notes that some men were not
simply made eunuches, but actually born that way. Furthermore, if
women were truly misbegotten and defective, one would be forced to
conclude that God had created from Adam's rib an imperfect thing.
However, Scripture attests, "God looked over everything he had made,
and he found it very good" (Gen. 1:31). Also, since in baptism all
are made into the perfect likeness of Christ, one would be forced to
conclude that God had again made an imperfect thing at the baptism of
every woman. Since this is clearly not so in the case of euchuchs
(cf. Acts 8:36-39; Matthew 19:12), it follows that it is not so in the
case of women, that indeed God creates all things new and perfect in
the baptism of His people.
THOMAS: Okay, God. Are you going to be sending the Spirit to the
Church anytime soon to make this official?
GOD: (silence)
Sincerely,
SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER
Cindy Smith
A Real Live Catholic in Georgia
A Real Live Catholic in the Anglican Communion
(Bless all moist south winds! Thank you, God, that I was born a woman!)wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (12/06/90)
In article <Dec.4.00.58.15.1990.593@athos.rutgers.edu> dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes:
SO MANY WORDS!
Cindy,
I am not about to argue for or against your Thomas, for I regard him as mostly
a harmful influence in the church. There are some things I want to clarify
about Scripture.
1 Tim 2:11-15:
"A woman should learn in quitness and full submission. I do not permit a
woman to teach or to have authority over a man' she must be silent. For
Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it
was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be
saved [or kept safe] through childbearing--if they continue in faith,
love and holiness with propriety."
First, there is not a shred of evidence that Paul is talking about a local
custom here. He did not even address a particular church, but Timothy.
We do know that he urged Timothy to stay in Ephesus (1:3).
He gives an argument that is based, not just on the fall of Adam and Eve,
but on order of creation. Adam was formed first, then Eve. In 1 Cor 11:8,9
we also read
"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created
for woman, but woman for man."
In 1 Cor 11 it so happens that he uses the principles derived from on the
order of creation to uphold a local custom regarding head-coverings.
But in 1 Timothy 2, there is no such custom.
The basic principle he uses is stated in 1 Tim 2:11: "A woman should learn
in quietness and full submission". He also stated this in 1 Cor 14:33:
"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to
speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
Since there is no commandment in the OT that says this, we infer that Paul
refers to the writings of the Torah, including the creation story. His
reasoning must be the same as he stated in 1 Cor 11 and in 1 Tim 2,
namely it is based on the order of creation.
The principle in this last passage is the submission. The application
has to do with speaking in public assembly of the church.
It does not have to do with singing hymns, or other vocal participation
in the worship of the church.
It makes no sense to say that since 'in Christ, there is neither male nor
female', Gal 3:28, that Paul's other statements do not apply. He wrote to
Christians in all of these passages, but he still differentiated between
men and women. In Galations he is saying that we are all equally 'sons of God'
and 'heirs of the promise', i.e., saved.
Much of the rest of what you said makes no sense to me because I am not
Roman Catholic. Ordination is not a sacrament, and we are all priests
(1 Peter 2:5,9). But we are not all pastors, or elders.
David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran.jhpb@garage.att.com (12/11/90)
I wasn't quite sure what David Wagner exactly thought of Cindy's posting, but, in case it needs to be said: What she posted was fictional in nature; St. Thomas (in the Summa) teaches that women cannot be validly ordained. Cindy was attempting a rewrite of the relevant part of the Summa to reverse St. Thomas's position. David Wagner, though a Lutheran, seems to have views on the subject similar to the Catholic Church's: Women are barred from exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and cannot even receive the Sacrament of Order validly. He ably summed up some of the Scriptural passages that deal with the vocations of men and women in life. Personally, I feel that all the hoopla over the ordination of women springs from the damage that has been done to the Christian ideals of womanhood in the late 20th century. Consider the beaches, where it might be more proper to talk about what is not worn, than what is. Or the pornographic nature of major department store catalogs. Or the ongoing slaughter of children by their own mothers. These things say a lot about the image of women that our society is pushing. I once attended a lecture by a Catholic woman that suggested something that I have ever since believed. In the words of Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, feminism has its origin in an inferiority complex. Some women cannot stand being women, they want to be men, because they think that women are inferior. Joe Buehler [May I point out that this is essentially an ad hominem argument. Many Protestant churches are full of well-balanced females functioning as church leaders, and they give no sign of wanting to return to the good old days. The number of American Catholic women in favor of ordination of women is somewhere between 40% and 55% (according to Greeley's survey data -- he's quoting this in the context of other variables, so I don't have the actual number). Both the high number and the way it is correlated with other variables make it very unlikely that it is explained by a bad sexual self-image. If half of Catholic women can't stand being women, you might want to ask yourself *why* they can't stand being women, but I don't believe that for a minute. --clh]
sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) (12/14/90)
This isn't about female ordination, it's about feminism - >Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 11-Dec-90 Re: Whether the female sex .. jhpb@garage.att.com (2204) > > >Consider the beaches, where it might be more proper to talk about what is > >not worn, than what is. Or the pornographic nature of major department > >store catalogs. Or the ongoing slaughter of children by their own > >mothers. These things say a lot about the image of women that our > >society is pushing. Why is is proper for men to wear very little clothing, but women must keep themselves covered up? The problem is that standards for men and women are different, and in many cases, unfair. The big flaw of the feminist revolution is that now, women are adopting some of the stupid values and ignorant practices that men have enjoyed for so long. >Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 11-Dec-90 Re: Whether the female sex .. jhpb@garage.att.com (2204) > > >In the words of Dr. Alice von > >Hildebrand, feminism has its origin in an inferiority complex. Some > >women cannot stand being women, they want to be men, because they think > >that women are inferior. Women judge themselves by the standards that men have set, and they find that by _male_ standards, women are *expected* to be inferior. That is the source of feminism. The problem seems to be caused by 2 things: a) that standards for females _require_ them to be inferior, by male standards b) little respect for womanhood among males How many men *actually* RESPECT woman for being feminine? Or is feminimity merely a CONVENIENCE for men? How can men ask women to respect feminimity when we ourselves do not respect feminimity? To dismiss feminism as merely a "female inferiority complex" is extremely arrogant. It avoids entirely the question "What has male culture done to make women want feminism?". It places the onus of change & correction entirely upon women, without regard to male roles in fixing the problem. FYI - I don't consider myself a feminist but I am aware of feminist arguments. Many of them are sort of loonie, but some of them are very accurate and justified. Stephen Chan
jhpb@garage.att.com (12/14/90)
The moderator wrote: > If half of Catholic women can't stand being women, you might want to > ask yourself *why* they can't stand being women, but I don't believe > that for a minute. --clh] I don't either. Dr. von Hildebrand's comments were (I believe) directed to the radfems, whom I do not believe to be numerous. I *do* think that my observations on the nature of womanhood as it is implemented in this country were rather on target. How many young women nowadays refuse to demean themselves through modern beach attire? If that's not immodest dress, what is? We are living in rather sad times, and I don't look for great advances in Christian doctrine and spirituality, which, of course, women's ordination is supposed to be. If my view of women's ordination is correct, it also says a few things about the modern view of the social roles of men and women, which I will leave to our gentle readers to work out. Joe Buehler "You, there! Eat this apple!" "Yes, dear."
David.Anderson@cs.cmu.edu (12/17/90)
Lynn, here, with just a comment in passing in response to Mr. Buehler's views: It never ceases to amaze me to read male discourse on "the nature of women/femininity." So much of our (humankind's) worldview is based on a view which promulgates masculinity as "normative," the true measure of what it is to be fully human and adult. Our (English) language is permeated with terms and grammatical structures which only serve to reinforce this idea (on conscious and unconscious levels). Someday, I hope, women will be viewed as fully adult in their own right, and as "theologically human" as men are--as fully participating in what it is to be Christian as men are capable of being. Until Christ's redemption covers Eve's curse as well as Adam's transgressions in the minds of the (generally male) ecclesiastical power-brokers, our weary little world will continue to be a haven for sexism, stereotypes, and gender-based discrimination of all kinds (promoting continued suffering among non-stereotypical men and women alike). Satan is doubtless enjoying his continued success in this area.
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (12/19/90)
In article <Dec.16.22.30.28.1990.23966@athos.rutgers.edu> David.Anderson@cs.cmu.edu writes: >It never ceases to amaze me to read male discourse on "the nature of >women/femininity." Bravo! >So much of our (humankind's) worldview is based on a >view which promulgates masculinity as "normative," the true measure of >what it is to be fully human and adult. ...at least in most "advanced" cultures. It would appear that the shift from a more-egalitarian, or possibly outright matriarchal, society to a patriarchy tended to accompany a certain "upward" development in technology, in most parts of the world. (Quotation marks are not intended 100% ironically -- I frankly *like* technology, or at least its fruits of safe food, quick transportation, cheap books, indoor plumbing, antibiotics, etc. -- and at the same time want to make it clear that I regard all these things bought at a cost, and especially a cost to women, much of which should not have been necessary.) >Our (English) language is >permeated with terms and grammatical structures which only serve to >reinforce this idea (on conscious and unconscious levels). Much of that is an overlay, though, put upon the language in the last few centuries by patriarchalists who wanted to force English to conform to a Classical model of grammar. Before then, it was perfectly acceptable to use "they" to refer to a single person of undetermined identity or sex, as it is becoming again except with grammatical-patriarchal curmudgeons. >Someday, I hope, women will be viewed as fully adult in their own right, >and as "theologically human" as men are--as fully participating in what >it is to be Christian as men are capable of being. There _are_ many Christian denominations where women are accepted as ministers, bishops, whatever the local version is called. If this is important to you, you should look around and see which ones of these fit your personal understanding of Christ most closely. >Until Christ's >redemption covers Eve's curse as well as Adam's transgressions in the >minds of the (generally male) ecclesiastical power-brokers, our weary >little world will continue to be a haven for sexism, stereotypes, and >gender-based discrimination of all kinds (promoting continued suffering >among non-stereotypical men and women alike). Satan is doubtless >enjoying his continued success in this area. But it does! Christ is clearly depicted as forgiving women's sins as well as men's -- Mary Magdalene, the woman caught in adultery, etc. He is also shown as letting women (Mary Virgin and Mary Magdalene) minister to him -- in specific terms, admittedly, but the connection is _far_ less tenuous than some of the arguments patriarchalists use to "prove" that women can't be ministers/whatever! Remember -- even the early Catholic church had deaconesses! Welcome to 1984! Are you ready for the Third World War? You too will meet the Secret Police -- We'll draft you and jail your niece, so come quietly too Boot Camp. We'll shoot you dead, make you a man, but don't worry, it's for a _cause_... --Dead Kennedys "We've Got A Bigger Problem Now" The Roach