The Serpent&#39;s Wisdom

Well, that's a bit more cynical than I am (usually) prepared to take things. But I have often wondered what it is, specifically, about men or masculinity that leads various cultures to develop the tradition that only men are to be seen as effective religious leaders.

Is it something to do with some "magical quality" that the male body possesses? Or is it a "deficiency" that supposedly exists in the womb or female body? Considering that intersex and transgendered have not generally been considered male priest substitutes in male-dominated cultures, it must be the former.

From:

Is it something to do with some "magical quality" that the male body possesses?

I can give you the Catholic answer. In Catholic theology, men and women are equal in dignity, but they are not the same. They were created for different roles. Unlike contemporary American culture, in Catholicism equal does not mean the same.

Not all religious leaders are priests. When the laity leaves all of the religious leadership to its priesthood, when it leaves all of its theological and doctrinal growth to clerical theologians, it is a sign that the laity has lost sight of Catholic belief, not that it is embracing it. We are all called to be a priestly people. The primary role of religious leadership within the Catholic Church is parenthood. Parents are the first catechists and the first religious guides. And women, due to their more intimate relationship with their children through childbirth and physically nourishing fulfill this role in an exceptional sense.

And, always remember, St. Catherine rebuked the Pope.

From:

akaiyume.livejournal.com

On what basis are the various equal but not the same roles prescribed? What is the rationale behind who does what?

From:

Some of it is biological, but we believe the biological is because of the roles we were created for, not the other way around.

The rationale is really based on discovery and revelation. We do not believe that we established the roles but that God did.

From:

It's turning out that many aspects of the traditional gender roles are reflected in brain differences between women and men. What's still not clear, is the extent to which brain development is guided by nurture instead of nature.

To my way of thinking, this makes a difference because it is ethically wrong to raise people in ways that keep them from living to their utmost potential.

I have no ethical objections to the idea of gender roles, provided that they are "loose" instead of "strict" -- that is, the simple observation that people of a particular gender are more likely to be better at certain things, shouldn't lead to the presumption that therefore only someone of a given gender should be given a particular task -- this is not a conclusion that is logically implied by the observation.

This is a personal issue for me, as I have never clearly fit into either category. Attempting to live out the "proscription" of the male gender role has been an absolute disaster for me.

From:

What's still not clear, is the extent to which brain development is guided by nurture instead of nature.

I think that what studies so far have shown is that there is not a hard and fast line between the two.

the simple observation that people of a particular gender are more likely to be better at certain things, shouldn't lead to the presumption that therefore only someone of a given gender should be given a particular task

I believe that both are the case. I do beleive that there are some few roles that are tied to our gender. However, there are many more roles that our gender makes us more suitable for, but that are not determined by gender alone.

From:

theodora.livejournal.com

I'm certain that you've faced this question n+ times already, so, if you can, be patient in answering - how do you address the idea that, as a man, espousing essentialism, in a tradition that, eloquent apologetics aside, has in practice been rather sexist (I'm a girl, raised Catholic. I have the baggage), you are...doing something rather cruel?

It's one thing to say, intellectually, that women should feel "equal." But...just by being a Catholic you also understand that we aren't just intellectual creatures, we process information in more ways than just intellectually. So. When the experience of women in the Church is, in so many ways, one of cruelty, one of being banned and barred and excluded, how can you give your explanation of the choice of men only with such apparent simplicity and ease?

It is very simple to say, "oh, how silly of you to be in pain." But that doesn't make the pain less real. It just punishes doubly the person who's in it.

What steps do you take to ensure that your answer holds also compassion, not merely tidy explanation?

Again, I don't mean to...I mean, I know, how often this must have been put to you before! But, that St. Catherine rebuked the Pope is of cold if any comfort to the women of Africa who have AIDS because of their husbands, &c, &c, &c.

There's a difference between the humility that one chooses and the humility that is imposed & enforced. The Catholic Church, in my observation, prefers the latter. Especially with regard to women.

Humility, magnaminity, teaching, these are power relations that...are not made more beautiful when the power is abused.

I type, obviously.

From:

how do you address the idea that, as a man, espousing essentialism, in a tradition that, eloquent apologetics aside, has in practice been rather sexist (I'm a girl, raised Catholic. I have the baggage), you are...doing something rather cruel?

If by sexist you mean that it distinguishes between genders, then it is. If by sexist you mean that it denigrates one sex, then it is not .. at least not inherently so, even if it has been unfortunately effectively so. I would say that the cruelty is our culture which continuously bombards us with the notion that there should be no differences between the genders, that we must be the same in order to be equal. Such a notion is utterly foreign to Catholicism and I see this notion as the cruelty.

So. When the experience of women in the Church is, in so many ways, one of cruelty, one of being banned and barred and excluded, how can you give your explanation of the choice of men only with such apparent simplicity and ease?

Since I disagree about the source of the cruelty, there is no way to answer this question. But when I look to make sense of it, my mind is always drawn to the simple reality of motherhood. Men are incapable of motherhood, incapable of bearing children and that intimate nurturing which to women comes as a natural course of biology.

What steps do you take to ensure that your answer holds also compassion, not merely tidy explanation?

Through engendering through my actions and my attitudes the respect and honor that all vocations deserve. But also through not attributing to some vocations more exclusive attributes than they possess. Though only women can be mothers, that does not mean that only they can be nurturing or loving. Though only men can be priests, that does not mean that only they can be religious leaders or only they can be theologians or that only they are responsible for establishing the direction that our Church will go.

I know that I often fail at this goal of compassion, but I try, and as in all goals, I won't let my failures change the goal to one easier to attain.

cold if any comfort to the women of Africa who have AIDS because of their husbands, &c, &c, &c

I do not understand this sort of critique. This trajedy is the result of deviation from the Catholic ideal, not the embracing of it.

From:

theodora.livejournal.com

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

From:

stacymckenna.livejournal.com

THIS is why I'm glad I was raised in the Lutheran church - well, the ones I went to. My pastor in high school was female. My first pastor in LA is female. Our current interim pastor giving the regular a pastor during Lent is female. One of the other congregants, an ordained Lutheran pastor (converted from Judaism) is female. When I think about it, I've had just as many female pastors as male.

Now if we could just get the Lutheran Church at eliminate the "gay clergy must be celibate" conditional...

From:

Let me make it clear, that I am not criticizing the Roman Catholic church specifically. This was why I titled the post "religious gender elitism," and I note that among the many protesters, one of the ones featured was a Catholic nun.

What I am criticizing is not solely a Catholic or even a Christian point of view.

From:

stacymckenna.livejournal.com

Exactly why I said "the ones I was raised in" though I realize it probably came off more anti-Catholic than intended - there are plenty of FANTASTIC Catholic clergy out there (most of them have been introduced to me by my fantastic Lutheran clergy) and there are also some real stinkers of Lutheran clergy out there. The only real advantage (Lutheran over Catholic) has is the opportunity for pastors to be women.

From:

ieremias.livejournal.com

I'm sorry, but when it comes down to it, they're fighting over who gets to wash feet. Dirty, smelly, poor people feet. I will never understand Christians.

From:

Actually, to be nitpicky, the dispute is over who gets their feet washed.

From:

You, and the others looking in from the outside, are missing one very significant bit in all this. It is a discipline in the Church to pick 12 men to stand for the Apostles in this Rite. This is our discipline, this is our Rite, the meaning is ours and the liturgical unity is ours.

They are men only because they stand for the 12 apostles. That they are men is not the point. This is not a gender issue, and those who make it such have long since lost the meaning of the practice. That people are protesting this *is* a condemnation of that diocese, but not over gender. It is a condemnation that the diocese has failed to teach these people the meaning of what is going on.

It is not about men and women, it is not about the 12 men. It puts our priesthood in context. It defines their relation, in imitating the actions of Christ, they proclaim their servanthood.

What is at stake here is that the discipline is to select 12 men. Exceptions can be made, but discipline difines the norm, and it does this in part to foster liturgical unity. It is not that women are not worthy of standing in this role .. and those who truly understand Catholicism's Theology of the Body - and yes, the Church has a formal Theology of the Body - understand this with no problem. The problem is defying discipline, in putting our selves and out cultural gender issues before the liturgical unity of the Church. That is the problem here and one of the greatest problems that the Catholic Church faces in western culture. Western culture teaches us to put the individual above all others, Catholicsim teaches us to put the community before ourselves.

From:

Sounds like yet another excellent reason for women to flee the Christian church in droves... not the only one, certainly, but just another one...

From:

Yes, since the movement to make women and men the same rather than equal has produced such marvelous fruits.

From:

Actually, I was referring to the massive ingrained misogyny in all brands of Chrisitanity. I have no idea what yiou are talking about. I have yet to visit a Christian church where women are treated either equally or the same. The best of them allow women a little niche of their own to hang out in (as long as they bother the much more important men, of course) so they can talk about babies and things because no good Christian woman(tm) ever would want to talk about anything else - the worst of them tell women to shut up, sit down, submit to whatever horrible treatment they get from their husbands and fathers, and pop out babies until they drop dead.

From:

badsede can answer for himself, but I think he was being cynical about the changes brought about by feminism.

I can't say that I am entirely without reservation when it comes to assessing the effects of feminism on society. I do wholeheartedly agree with the goals of equal opportunity and equal bodily control and determination. I also firmly believe that what social changes make life better for women will also benefit men. But IMO the jury is out on whether or not society has benefitted from every change brought about in response to feminism.

From:

There has only been a surface change towards feminism - the misogynistic attitudes beneath remain, and I suspect it may be several centuries before they depart for good. Given that, I don't think every societal change - especially every negative societal change - in the last 50 years can be blamed on feminism. We don't even have a national ERA, and the backlash against the few battles we've won is immense.
Given that, what has occured as a drect result of feminism - that is to say, a semblance of compassion beginning to be given to battered wives and rape victims, a few options for women whove been abandoned with children by their husbands, a bit of recourse for women who are treated like dirt in the workplace, the opening of higher education to women - I can't possibly see as a bad thing. The few small excesses have been short-lived and trumpeted totall out of proportion to their effect on society.

From:

I have yet to visit a Christian church where women are treated either equally or the same.

I have been to churches that do fall short of the goal, but I have never been to one that even approaches being as bad as what you describe as the best of them. But then, I have spent only a limited amount of time in churches outside of my own tradition and none in the part of the country that you are from.

From:

dhaaz.livejournal.com

"They are men only because they stand for the 12 apostles."
Looking at a statement like this, I can see someone easily arguing for the arbitrariness of the sign, so that anything should be able to stand for the 12 apostles, so long as it is recognized as standing for them. And though I don't think there is complete arbitrariness in this case — some symbols will require less effort to see as symbols for the symbolized —, still, it doesn't seem it would be so much a stretch to cast a woman as a man, much as men were cast as women in plays throughout history (and continuing into today in some places). Looking at this, it seems the argument for men alone representing the 12 apostles is that they should more readily represent 12 male apostles than 12 women should, though both could do the representation. But going from this, why not require them to paint their faces to any appropriate shade, and wear period dress, and the like, where such expenses could be easily borne?

"Western culture teaches us to put the individual above all others, Catholicism teaches us to put the community before ourselves" (spelling regularized).
Given how long Catholicism has been of Western culture, and its integral part in developing Western culture — I am thinking of that whole middle period — why cannot one say that Western culture is Catholic culture, and that if Western culture does not appear to be what we think Catholic culture should look like, then perhaps our image of Catholic culture has been mistaken, and we are in fact living in it now? How are things as they are not what Catholicism comes to look like in the end? How long must one wait and keep saying, "Perhaps next year — perhaps next century — perhaps the next millennium?"

I respect your understanding in these matters, and it is why I ask you.

From:

Looking at a statement like this, I can see someone easily arguing for the arbitrariness of the sign, so that anything should be able to stand for the 12 apostles, so long as it is recognized as standing for them.

Actually, it is fairly arbitrary, and I do support the changing of the discipline. There should be no problem with only choosing men, or only choosing women, or choosing both, and some bishops have changed discipline within their diocese - as is their authority to do. However, I do not support the means. This is the Triduum, the highest, most significant liturgy of the whole year. I highly object to distracting from it with protests and demonstrations. I object to the protestors putting their own issues and politics before this holy time.

Given how long Catholicism has been of Western culture, and its integral part in developing Western culture — I am thinking of that whole middle period — why cannot one say that Western culture is Catholic culture, and that if Western culture does not appear to be what we think Catholic culture should look like, then perhaps our image of Catholic culture has been mistaken, and we are in fact living in it now?

Western culture and catholic culture diverged even before the Reformation - that is largely what necessitated it - and have only diverged more and more since. I would say that in contemporary times, Catholic values and Western values have more points of contention than coincidence.

From:

A while back, I posted in

challenging_god, and I think here in my journal, that "theology is not algebra." I was fumbling towards finding a way to demonstrate that the cultural or psychological or economic implications of a doctrinal point are inherently part of the meaning of that point -- that theology cannot be interpreted in a cultural, psychological, or economic vacuum.

This point, about only men being acceptable stand-ins for the disciples, is a good illustration of what I was trying to express.

It is not only from the perspective of modern culture or modern super-individualism that one might conclude that the male-stand-ins-only implies denigration of women. The early Christian literature demonstrates that the role of women in the church was a matter of dire contention.

Some in the early church wanted to view gender as irrelevant. Some of the non-canonical literature shows Mary and Martha and Salome and other women conversing with Jesus as though they were equal to the disciples in knowledge and virtue. This same scripture shows awareness of the controversy, casting Simon Peter as the one with the most vehement complainst about equal female participation (see for example Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene).

That the liturgy calls for only male stand-ins for the disciples may very well reflect this early controversy -- rather than modern notions of "female liberation."

This is not a gender issue, and those who make it such have long since lost the meaning of the practice.

From my standpoint, refusing to allow women to serve as stand-ins in itself makes the matter a gender issue. As I argued in my post, if gender were not an issue, there should be no theological dilemma with having female stand-ins, since the disciples themselves are no longer among us.

From:

This point, about only men being acceptable stand-ins for the disciples, is a good illustration of what I was trying to express.

That is the point, that is not the belief. It is merely a practice. That it is somewhat arbitrary and that we are sophisticated enough that we do not the need the stand-ins to actually be men is a good point. But it is our discipline nonetheless.

I see another issue here besides gender. It's not like this is anything new, it's not like the practice has not always been clearly stated, it's not like there is any good reason for them to be surprised. I support changing the discipline, and as discipline it can be changed. But I do not support their means. I do not support simply defying the discipline of our Church. Nor do I support distracting from the Triduum with protests and demonstrations .. especially as such actions are more likely to hinder change than foster it, for exactly the reasons that I stated at the beginning.

Ours is a Church whose liturgy is under constant assault, it's meaning being stripped from it by abuses and frivolous and selfish innovations. Experience has taught us that defiance on small matters typically accompanies defiance on large matters. I'm happy to see one of our bishops take a stand, even if it is on a practice that I don't necessarily agree with.

Some in the early church wanted to view gender as irrelevant.

Some did, but the early Church in general recognized the differences between men and women and not being irrelevant.

Some of the non-canonical literature shows Mary and Martha and Salome and other women conversing with Jesus as though they were equal to the disciples in knowledge and virtue. This same scripture shows awareness of the controversy, casting Simon Peter as the one with the most vehement complainst about equal female participation (see for example Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene).

I would say that women are the same in knowledge and dignity. Again, we come down to the idea that the priesthood is about power. But it is not, and it is losing sight of this that causes problems, not embracing the true nature of the priesthood.

I think these scenes have a different implication. They come from works that sought to undercut the theological authority of the contemporary Church. There are few figures to be found in the Gospel tradition to use. I see two implications. Not only is there the assault on the early Church's notion about the material world, which included but was not limited to notions about gender. But I think that the larger issue was making the canonical apostles look bad, impugning their character and wisdom in order to undermine their message and thus supplant it.

From my standpoint, refusing to allow women to serve as stand-ins in itself makes the matter a gender issue.

You have a certain point there. However, for us, there are far more issues at stake than just those of gender roles.

From:

I support changing the discipline, and as discipline it can be changed. But I do not support their means. I do not support simply defying the discipline of our Church.

Yes, I see your point.

Ours is a Church whose liturgy is under constant assault, it's meaning being stripped from it by abuses and frivolous and selfish innovations.

It's perfectly reasonable to be concerned that doctrine not be affected by frivolous innovations. But likewise I'm concerned that innovations in culture, such as increased individualism, reflect not frivolous selfishness, but actual human evolution. An institution that expects human continuity instead of human evolution cannot account for evolution if or when it occurs.

This is a major difficulty with the prevailing notion in Christianity, that we are just "doing time" waiting for the return of Christ. Under this view, no advancement that reflects human growth or human ingenuity can be truly "the coming thing," but must be simply a distraction or detour. There is no way under this view to account for paradigm change.

Not only is there the assault on the early Church's notion about the material world, which included but was not limited to notions about gender.

This was an aspect of it, certainly.

But I think that the larger issue was making the canonical apostles look bad, impugning their character and wisdom in order to undermine their message and thus supplant it.

I disagree. In Pistis Sophia and the Gospel of Mary, other male disciples are depicted as coming to the women's defense. Peter, of all the disciples, is the one in whom we see attitudes change; his vision in Acts 10, for example, reflects the change of heart reflected in his comments during the debate between Paul and James in Acts 15. So the authors of these non-canonical texts may have meant to show Peter in this case as one who had yet another kind of growing to accomplish, in the evolution of his views towards women.

From:

An institution that expects human continuity instead of human evolution cannot account for evolution if or when it occurs.

But a community that embraces revolution over evolution cannot maintain that which defines it.

This is a major difficulty with the prevailing notion in Christianity, that we are just "doing time" waiting for the return of Christ.

I do not see this as the prevailing notion in Christianity .. although maybe in Protestantism. Our whole soteriology and sacramental system is about growth and change. For us, the Paul on the road to Damascus experience is a rare one. Most of us are bound to the path of Peter, that of Grace and doubt, success and failure, imperfection striving toward perfection.

From:

akaiyume.livejournal.com

The problem is defying discipline, in putting our selves and out cultural gender issues before the liturgical unity of the Church. That is the problem here and one of the greatest problems that the Catholic Church faces in western culture. Western culture teaches us to put the individual above all others, Catholicsim teaches us to put the community before ourselves.

I would think that simply being moral creatures teaches us to put the community before ourselves. (Yeah, I am being idealistic again.)

I can completely understand the fact that you are upset the the protests are detracting from what is the holiest time of the Catholic year. But these are members of the community who are protesting (I think. If someone is not a part of the Catholic community and is directly protesting this specific incidence they need to stop and think about what they are doing and why). What happens when the disciplines and the needs of the community itself are in conflict?

I understand putting community first. I understand and am more than willing to sacrifice my own needs and desires to bring about a greater good. I will admit that I am not religious enough to understand putting a liturgy above the needs of a community.

From:

I would think that simply being moral creatures teaches us to put the community before ourselves. (Yeah, I am being idealistic again.)

We believe the same, that everyone has an a conscience that will lead them to moral choices if they follow it.

What happens when the disciplines and the needs of the community itself are in conflict?

The disciplines exist to serve the needs of the community. What we are seeing here is one need coming into conflict with another. This community - due to its cultural baggage - finds needing or at least feeling they need - which does not decrease its validity - this variation from the norm. But the norm also fulfills the needs of the community, even if they are not aware of it.

So, a compromise must be made. The needs must be balanced. This is one change that seems quite reasonable to me. But change should not come this way. And it bothers me all the more that this was a surprise to the people protesting. The discipline was no secret, has been this way since the practice was re-established in '55. The ignorance of Catholics of Catholic practices really bothers me, whether it is because of lack of effort on the part of the person or lack of catechesis on the part of the Church.

I will admit that I am not religious enough to understand putting a liturgy above the needs of a community.

The liturgy serves the community in tremendous ways. It teaches, it sustains, it unifies, it edifies, it challenges. Assaults on the liturgy are therefore often assaults on these vital roles that it fulfills in the community. So, it is putting some needs of the community over other needs. The compromise must be found.

From:

In SDA churches I attended with my foster mother, men and women would go into seperate rooms and wash each others feet so as to avoid any impure looking up of skirts and such :)
I always thought it was a nice thing.

From:

publius-aelius.livejournal.com

sopiaserpentia and

ladybabalon have EVERY RIGHT to point out the obvious (see below).

They are men only because they stand for the 12 apostles. That they are men is not the point. This is not a gender issue, and those who make it such have long since lost the meaning of the practice. That people are protesting this *is* a condemnation of that diocese, but not over gender. It is a condemnation that the diocese has failed to teach these people the meaning of what is going on.

In some ways, I agree with this statement: the diocese has failed to teach the people of its parishes that men and women are equal sharers in the Kingdom. The diocese has failed to foster "community," but part of the way it has failed to foster community was to fail to show the people how to grasp and subdue and discipline the POWER that inheres, unfortunately, in EVERY human community, and then to USE it for the equal benefit and interest of ALL. The way that badsede speaks of the "diocese" (the ecclesiastical polity) "teaching" the "people" the way he does makes ME think that, at heart, he is still living, as are, unfortunately, the remnants of the Catholic faithful who still go to church (most don't) in the top-down phallocracy of the pre-Vatican II Church. Many of the Church's critics must understand that, in their hearts, most of the "faithful" (i.e."conservative" Catholics) justifying EVERYTHING the ossified, reactionary hierarchy is doing or saying nowadays, NEVER ACCEPTED THE DIRECTIONS VATICAN II THREATENED TO TAKE THE CHURCH IN. They've won, however; we "liberal" Catholics are thrown out, and rejected. I love that lonely old nun, though; she's a holy woman, who refuses to see her Church commandeered by the power-mad ecclesiastical bureaucrats of its hierarchy.

From:

publius-aelius.livejournal.com

(cont'd)
It is not about men and women, it is not about the 12 men. It puts our priesthood in context. It defines their relation, in imitating the actions of Christ, they proclaim their servanthood.

I agree that the sacerdotal role is one of "servanthood." And I even agree that it may be best that it be reserved for men, to honor the gender of Christ. Even if we do know that Gospels were tampered with by an ecclesiastical polity early in the Church's history, bent on giving the upper hand in the Church to Gentile, generally celibate males, denying the key roles of women in the circles around Christ, I would say that it is still best for men to sacramentally enact the stages and passages of Christ's redemptive life. And this is what things like consecrating the Eucharist and washing feet, etc., are all about. No one would make an issue of such things if POWER (which exists, unfortunately) were shared in a way that reflected the equality, before God, of men and women. It is very easy for

badsede to jump in here, and speak of this "washing issue" as somehow impertinent on the part of the protestors. He's right; the poor souls are "bad-mannered"--sort of like screaming lepers or Samaritans. But let him answer THIS question: The office of cardinal-elector of the Pope is not a sacerdotal one; it is one purely of the ecclesiastical polity; boy-princes and laymen have occupied the position and fulfilled its responsibilities. As a Jesuit cardinal is reputed to have bluntly demanded of the reigning Pope (to be responded with by nothing but spluttering fury): WHAT IS THE THEOLOGICAL IMPEDIMENT TO A WOMAN HOLDING THIS POSITION IN THE HIERARCHY? WHY MAY NOT WOMEN BE PERMITTED TO HELP CHOOSE THE POPE, SO LONG AS THEY DON'T CHOOSE ONE ANOTHER? I know of no question that has more explicitly bared the anti-feminist bias among the ecclesiastical careerists who've highjacked our Churh in recent years, and steered her back to the fear and reaction of "Syllabus of Error" days and against the course of Vatican II. They will not give women an equal place at the table, which DOES NOT mean usurping Christ's sacramental position, just putting her right back at Jesus's side--the canonical Gospels to the contrary notwithstanding. What they are doing is destroying the saving role in the world of my Church, making her a mockery and a redundancy, and now they have her all to themselves, after they've invited us "liberals" to leave, and so many have.

From:

And I even agree that it may be best that it be reserved for men, to honor the gender of Christ.

Do you believe that it would be a dishonor (or less of an honor) for a woman to "to sacramentally enact the stages and passages of Christ's redemptive life"? I simply don't understand what being male or female in itself has to do with redemption.

I'm willing to admit that being born into one gender or another tends to give one certain aptitudes and certain, um, "dis-aptitudes," but it has been noted that we can often observe more variance between members of one gender than we find between the averages of male and female. That is, the "bell curves" overlap so much that aptitudes vary more on a purely human scale than they do by gender.

So, to conclude that men are better suited to handle the sacraments, simply because Jesus was a man, seems to imply that there is some "essence" possessed by males that females either lack or are deficient in.

Let me take a second tack on this. Paul noted that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven." While this may or may not reflect a certain dualistic disdain for flesh, I find Paul's words to be incompatible with the suggestion that gender makes any difference with regard to sacrament, redemption, or grace.

From:

publius-aelius.livejournal.com

Briefly, I myself actually don't, but I've heard the argument made that some want to reserve it to a male out of love and honour for Jesus's person, which, as a compromiser, generally (which

badsede,

ariston, et. al. would NEVER concede), I'd like to honour, as the sentiment of others who make such a big issue of this "theology of the body" (which I wholly buy into, until it starts leaving out androgynous or "queer" bodies--which I like to think Jesus didn't at all, when he was talking about "born eunuchs." So, no, Miss Serpentia: just as a "mercy" to the "conservatives." But I'd just as soon the ladies' feet get washed, too, myself.

From: