Talk:Timothy Ware
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Section on "Women in the Priesthood"
The article currently has the following section:
Metropolitan Kallistos considers the Ordination of Women to the Orthodox Priesthood an “Open Question”
In 1978, Bishop Kallistos, as he then was, wrote an article in Peter Moore (ed.), Man, Woman and the Priesthood of Christ (SPCK: London, 1978), pp. 68-90. (Reprinted in Women and the Priesthood, ed. Thomas Hopko (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: Crestwood, N.Y.) 1983, pp 9-37) In a second edition of the same article published in 1999,he wrote : “Since [1978] my views on the issue have altered. In 1978 I considered the ordination of women priests to be an impossibility. Now I am much more hesitant. I am far from convinced by many of the current arguments advanced in favour of women priests; but at the same time a number of the arguments urged on the other side now appear to me a great deal less conclusive than they did twenty years ago. What I would plead is that we Orthodox should regard the matter as essentially an open question”. (Women and the Priesthood, (second edition) ed. Thomas Hopko (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: Crestwood, N.Y.) 1999, ISBN 0-88141-146-9, p.7)
I think this gives disproportionate emphasis to a single statement by his Grace, especially given that it's merely a statement that he lacks a firm opinion on a particular question (i.e. he isn't saying women can be priests, he isn't saying they can't). I'm removing this section (I'm Bold!), but if people disagree, I could see having a much, much shorter version of this (a sentence, or just a clause) in a broader section about, say, "Bishop Kallistos's opinions on matters of current Orthodox concern" or suchlike. -- Narsil (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- An anonymous user restored the section without explanation. I think I have good grounds for removing the section (among other things, the tone isn't encyclopedic), so I'm deleting the section again--but I'm open to discussion. Anyone want to defend the section as it currently stands (or, better, rewrite it so it's more appropriate for the article)? Thanks! -- Narsil (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

