Below is the article I prepared in order to explain the theological objections to women priests. It is drawn from the excellent book ‘Consecrating women’ and from various addresses given by Fr. Kirk. I know that both he and Fr. Baker will delight in my reworking of thier material for the Catholic cause:
There is a lot of important theology in this article. So please take time to read- and re-read. To prayerfully reflect and absorb the contents. A race through in one sitting may not do the subject justice!
But before we start let me state categorically that Women priests, (and potentially women bishops), are committed Christians. People who love, and are deeply loved by, God. Fellow ministers of the Gospel who act in accordance with what they believe to be God’s will. This is evident in the skilful way many run parishes, preach, teach and care for their people. That women priests are capable is not in question. Nor should it be. What is in question is the ‘sacramental’ validity of women acting as priests and bishops in God’s Church.
Conflicting ideas about gender
Unfortunately society and Traditional Christianity hold contradictory views on gender. Current society, with its emphasis on the individual, promotes the belief that men and women are virtually interchangeable in both role and function. Gender is seen as largely irrelevant in choice of partner, job suitability or vocation. The media has powerfully moulded opinion in this regard. So much so that very few question it.
But Traditional Christianity, with its emphasis on the family, refutes any notion that gender is irrelevant. It teaches full equality whilst accepting that man and woman are created different. God has made us equal but with different roles and functions. We were made to compliment each other- not compete with one another!
Unfortunately most people approach the issue of ‘women priests’ understanding only the societal view of gender. Thus thinking sociologically not theologically! Priesthood is treated much like any other job. It is thus assumed that female candidates have as much ‘right’ to this ‘job’ as all others. And were priesthood just a job- concerned with ‘doing’ not ‘being’ – they would be right!
But Catholic theology advocates priesthood as vocation –concerned with ‘being’ not ‘doing’. It has little to do with ‘rights’ and everything to do with ‘role’. Priesthood is not akin to a secular job but to such things as motherhood, fatherhood, being a wife or husband. Something in which gender becomes a determining factor.
We must understand this basic fact before turning to the following reasons why this ‘priestly servile vocation’ has traditionally been understood as male in essence:
Part 1: Theology
1. Jesus fully valued, respected and upheld women. He called them into ministry as disciples. Yet Jesus chose no women ‘apostles’. Furthermore Mary Magdalene, chosen as ‘first witness to the resurrection’, was obvious replacement for Judas- yet the male Matthias was chosen instead. Surely this is not accidental.
Supporters of women’s ordination counter this by suggesting Jesus was limited by the wisdom of his age. But this seems dubious. After all Christ was ever willing to defy convention. He countered pharisaic teaching where necessary. Furthermore the pagan world of his day was awash with female priests. They were not an alien concept. Jesus could easily have followed such example if he willed. The evidence suggests he chose not to.
2. St Paul taught that women were equal to men (‘In Christ…there is no male or female, slave or free’) Yet also taught that their role was to be different. (Forbidding women to have ‘ liturgical authority’ in Church.) This suggests how St Paul interpreted the fact that Christ appointed no women apostles.
3. There were no women bishops or presbyters in the early Church. This indicates that St Paul’s take was not just his own (some even suggest sexist) opinion. But the consensus among all the Apostles- handed down to their successors.
4. In the 3rd century, a group known as Montanists formed. Their teaching was rejected as dangerous because they questioned the reliability of Tradition. (Montanists wished to change things due to “new revelations of the Spirit”.- sound familiar?) What ultimately condemned them was their desire to ordain women – seen as evidence that they were un-faithful to scriptural Tradition. This further proves that ‘male-only priesthood’ was the authentic teaching of the Early Church. (It also assures us that the issue is hardly new – as we are often led to believe!!!)
5. The earliest Canon Law forbade women’s ordination. These canons were endorsed by the Council of Nicaea (who gave us ‘The Creed’ in 325.) To endorse women priests we must assume the council of Nicaea gave wrongful teaching on matters of holy orders. Yet they certainly got things right in the Creed. So is this tenable? Just as the Nicene creed is fundamental to Christian doctrine, so surely their opinions matter today?
6. One can only argue Scripture endorses women priests, by attributing St Paul’s teaching against them as;
a) wrongful personal opinion –or-
b) applicable only to his time and place.
However there’s a right and wrong way to interpret Scripture. The traditional way is to endorse scripture where clear – and mould our lives accordingly. Choosing our preferred interpretation, making scripture say what we wish to hear, is most definitely not right. Therefore S. Paul’s teaching is hard to dismiss.
7. As noted: Secularism promotes gender as interchangeable- the Church upholds a celebration of two different natures- leading to a belief in a difference of role and function within equality. We see this clearly in Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul. Both witnessed to Christ with equal integrity – but by very different callings- as man and woman. One was the priest -Peter- the other the beloved disciple -Magdalene. Both equal disciples, yet utterly distinct.
8. This difference in role leads to the Mass. At the Eucharist the priest stands ‘in persona Christi’. “The person of Christ”. (hence Orthodox priests have beards and long hair!) Christ cannot be ‘sacramentally’ represented by a woman because Christ’s ‘maleness’ is not incidental- its revelatory. (It tells us something about God) It would be silly on stage to cast a man in the role of Mary. It seems equally silly at Mass to ask a woman to stand in the place of Christ. He was a man- and there is not avoiding that fact.
9. Jesus is bound to his role as Father not mother. This revelation of a ‘male God’ says something subtle yet profound. We see this in the following:
Pagan religion used priestesses to promote the ‘mother god’ who gives birth to creation. (Hence nature worship) But Judaism challenged this- making God life giver instead- revealing a separateness to created order. Nature created by him not of him. The priest ‘in persona Christi’ symbolises this at a deep, unconscious level. A woman priest leads us back to the pagan understanding of the feminine divine. (And its interesting how –where women have been ordained- a more earthy, pagan spiritually seems to have arisen.)
10. Scripture teaches that Christ’s relationship with his people is signified by the imagery of Christ as groom and His bride the Church. This is cemented in both the marriage ceremony and mass! It follows that we- the bride of Christ must open ourselves to our groom in order to be impregnated by his Word. We then ‘give birth’ to fruits of the Spirit. At the Eucharist created order is echoed. Marriage and the Mass tell us about our relationship with God. Alas a female priest confuses this image of ‘Christ and bride’ at a subtle yet profound level.
11. Mother Church (feminine not masculine) has always taught that changes to belief and practice can only be accepted when backed by scripture, reason and tradition. All three -not just one. If something cannot be proved by all 3 then we lack authority to adopt it. So even if modern ‘reason’ suggests women’s ordination to be correct – it cannot be accepted- unless equally revealed by Scripture and tradition. (Which it is patently not).
12. All arguments in favour of women priests return to the Secular argument for ‘inclusivity’– which itself stems from a misguided definition of man and woman as same and interchangeable. Orthodox Christians prefer to uphold the divine revelation of ‘equal but different’. I am yet to hear a convincing theological argument in favour of women priests. Pro arguments appeal powerfully to the heart-but are entirely sociological and based on the secular concept. This is not the right starting point for a believer who is called to use scripture to discern what God teaches regarding creation.
13. God does not do U-turns. Why would the Holy Spirit teach that women’s ordination is wrong through scripture and the teachings of the early church – only to declare such practice valid in the 21st Century? God is surely the same yesterday, today and forever! We should be wary when we consider that the cry to ordain women – a so-called ‘revelation of the Spirit’ has only really arisen alongside the rise of the liberal political opinion of the last Century. Surely God would have been more impressive ‘revealing’ this in the 1st Century? Unless of course this is a case of society wagging the tail of the church – and not Mother Churches true teaching on matters of gender, equality, role and function.
14. If God wants women priests and bishops- he wants them for the whole Church. To ‘Anglo-Catholic’ Anglicans this is crucial! I cannot accept that the Church of England- which makes up only a tiny fraction of global Christianity- has authority to make such immense decisions alone. Only when Rome and Constantinople agree – can we possibly proclaim the ordination of women as a decision from God. Yet Rome and Constantinople remain utterly opposed. Subsequently the Anglican place within mainstream Christianity is being seriously undermined. It has become a major stumbling block on the path to Church unity.
15. In 1992 we were promised that ‘women priests’ would restore the image of the Church. It was stated powerfully that people, especially the young, would flood back to our pews. The reality has been quite different!
Though many women priests perform excellent work, the decision to ordain them has deeply damaged our Church. A schism was created and, for the first time in history, endorsed by the establishment who declared both proponents and opponents to be valid! Hundreds of faithful priests were lost to Rome. People left in droves. Should current trends continue there will be no ‘C of E’ worshippers in 2040. Hardly the promised outcome.
Part 2. The Practical problems:
When discussing priesthood we must first ask: What are Holy Orders for? The answer to this question is of paramount importance- but it is a question the C of E refuses to debate! Little wonder – Anglicanism is far too woolly! You would get three different answers; Evangelical, broad and Catholic! But according to divine tradition; Holy Orders exist for two reasons. (Note we are not asking what vicars do!)
1) In order to authenticate sacraments.
2) In order to authenticate doctrine through preaching.
The priesthood should ensure then that all teaching is broadly correct and not invented. And that sacraments are truly valid. Within this Bishops act as ‘the focus of unity’. The fount of Holy Orders and defenders of doctrine.
A) Think horizontally! By definition a Church must be united in its priesthood. With all pulling together in common mission. This means that across the world priests are interchangeable; able to stand in place of one another at pulpit and altar.
Yet since the ordination of women there is not one diocese where this circle of unity has not been broken. Legislation allows people to deny the validity of women priests if they wish. Which necessarily means that dioceses can no longer unite at the altar. No one priest can stand in for another. Ordinary people are allowed to decide (quite legally) if someone’s ordination is valid or not. (What compromise but what utter nonsense!)
When the first woman was ordained Canon A4 of the Church of England was abolished: It read ‘Those ordained should be seen as fully valid by all.’
The result is that we no longer have unity. The seriousness of this cannot be underestimated. It is growing increasingly evident. How can you have private judgment in orders? Collegiality is rendered dormant and the Church turned into an international conference of conflicting beliefs. There is no priestly authority as has been handed down since the time of the apostles.
Its easy to assume this is academic fluff or hysterical theory: but we only have to open our eyes to see it as fact. Cracks are now opening up all over the communion, widening and growing. Once scripture was ‘overlooked’ to ordain women – it was only a matter of time before it happened on other matters. No surprise then that the homosexual lobby used similar secular ‘social justice’ arguments for their own propaganda and agenda. Once we commissioned ‘flying Bishops’ we gave licence to leadership choice based on personality and belief- a defiance of binding holy orders. Today + Akinola of Nigeria will not sit at the same table as +Schori of USA! What is there to stop hundreds of splits over a plethora of differing issues- each with their own figureheads and heroes?
2) Think Vertically The ordination of women has shattered the historic line handed down through the apostles. A woman priest would not be recognised by those serving in living two hundred years ago. Which breaks the unity of past and future. Augustine could not be replaced at his altar by Patricia – a deep strain of Holy tradition is now fractured.
Our Ordinal makes it clear that this tradition is what provides validity. It is fact not opinion. We are a Church built on Apostolic succession. Sadly no more… we have become a Church that has performed a wilful act of disunity. A Church that refused to work with -or wait for- Rome or Constantinople. (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy respectively)
Our Church foolishly refused to wait for all her members to agree. Instead it made silly and impossible legislation- i.e. allowing traditionalists to disbelieve in women’s orders. Little surprise that the Church is now in a frightful mess. We are a Church that has dismissed tradition and scripture in pursuit of sociological ideals. Something that causes me deep sorrow.
To the uninformed and those outside of the Church- ‘women priests’ was a modernising act. One that liberated a stuffy, archaic institution. But to the orthodox Christian it is a sign of a Church in which unity and continuity have been destroyed! I pray that we can find a way to restore our Church to its true nature. A protestant part of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Conclusion to the reasons!
I hope you see why I believe the decision to grant women the ancient ‘sacramental’ role of priest and bishop was misguided. I hope you also see how the decision to ordain women damaged our Church, and could damage it even further should women be consecrated as Bishops. For this would throw into doubt all those they declared to be priests.
Yet despite all this we must acknowledge that sexism has NO PLACE in our Church. God created us equal – man and woman are called to compliment and uphold the other. Thus I am fully committed to supporting female Christians as inspiring Christian colleagues. I wish we could find a way, other than priesthood, to offer modern women a vocational position within the Church- aside from a life as a nun. Perhaps a new order is needed? Full time parish workers, on equal stipend, with functions not open to men but without a sacramental role and purpose. Is this the way forward for the Church?
Perhaps you draw different conclusions? Maybe you can help me to see a theological and scriptural purpose in ordaining women? Regardless let us remember that what unites us–is our love of the Lord Jesus. And even in disagreement we must draw together in working for his kingdom in this place.
How have Anglo-Catholics responded to women priests
The Anglo-Catholic movement was shell shocked by General Synod’s decision in 1992 to ordain women. But since that time its organisations have worked tirelessly to try and find a way forward – seeking as much unity as possible -whilst retaining an authentic sacramental identity. How could we work alongside the newly ordained women priests- offering them due support and care- when we were convinced (for the reasons above) that the decision to ordain them was theologically flawed? We needed space and distance in which to retain the faith we held dear- alongside the ability and grace to remain within this rapidly changing Church.
Although slightly messy theologically- the best way forward came through the creation of ‘flying Bishops’ who would care for parishes unable in conscience to accept the ordination of women. +John Broadhurst of Fulham is one such Bishop and well known to all at S. Barnabas. His tireless ministry has allowed us to maintain an Anglo-Catholic integrity, without having to leave the Church that we love.
It often surprises people that traditional Anglo-Catholics, though opposed to women priests, have petitioned for women bishops! Why? Because we believe that if a woman CAN be a priest- she MUST be eligible to be Bishop- not allowing this is ludicrous. We believe the decision of Synod to create women priests but not bishops is blatant sexism and therefore abhorrent! Why create a glass ceiling?
Trad. Anglo-Catholics do not believe the Church was right to ordain women – but now it has happened – we believe they must be treated with proper respect. To achieve this requires us finding a safe place in which to witness to the faith as we received it. We believe that if the Church wishes to bring about new innovations – previously denounced by all Christendom- it owes safe sanctuary to those who do not embrace its changes.
In 1992 Traditional Catholic Anglicans were assured we remained a valued part of the Church. Promises were made that we would be treated as valid members whose opinion was authentically Christian. Alas – many people forget this or behave as if it isn’t true. Despite us never altering our beliefs, practice or expression – despite us not changing in any discernable way- we are often labelled troublemakers! We are misrepresented and misunderstood. So much so we are even accused of ‘sexism’ by those wishing we would withdraw altogether! A label I find hurtful – as I am a strong believer in true equality.
Thus its not always easy being an orthodox Catholic in today’s Church of England! We tend to be pushed to the margins. And since 1992 virtually none of our priests have been promoted to higher office. We exist as lepers- an irritation to those who want change. But despite this we keep good spirits and our churches- in opposition to most others – show signs of real growth and renewal! God has blessed us enormously. In our ever changing world people are drawn to the stable church that stands as a sign of loving contradistinction to our society. (As opposed to those churches who seem to endorse secular opinion).
And now the saga is about to take another turn. In July 2008 the Synod meets to discuss a way forward for Women Bishops. It will also hear the reflection of the ‘Manchester Group’- who considered what provision should be made for the opponents.
Traditional Anglo-Catholics are seeking the creation of new ‘traditional Dioceses’. Three would be created – two in the north and one in the south. All her clergy would witness to the Catholic understanding of male-only priesthood. Any parish in the land could opt in or out by decision of its PCC. This would allow us to have unity and confidence in holy orders- whilst also remaining within the Church of England. It is our way of allowing women priests to have what they desire – whilst granting space to those who, in conscience and sympathy with 90% of Christians worldwide – do not embrace the innovation.
But a leaked report in the newspapers suggests that the House of Bishops would prefer a model whereby ‘flying bishops’ are scrapped and traditional parishes given the least possible provision. In short they would give us ‘their word’ that we would be treated fairly and could select a male bishop if desired. Clearly such provision falls way short of what we require. We have learnt the painful way that promises are easily broken or forgotten. In addition a huge sacramental problem arises. Because we are uncertain that women really CAN be priests- it follows we do not have full confidence in their sacramental ability. This means we would be uncertain if those ordained priest by a woman bishop were the genuine article. At best a question mark would hang over their credentials.
In truth it is a mess and it will not be easy to sort things out. But then it is not a mess that we Anglo-Catholics created. In the coming weeks and months we must pray for a way forward without further fracturing the church. And most importantly a way forward that allows churches like S. Barnabas to retain the faith as it has always been practised in past generations and today.
I have no idea what the future holds. But I am passionate that S. Barnabas’ will remain a house of genuine prayer and a place in which all men and women are equally loved, upheld and respected. Those who worship here regularly know that we are sincere, devout and inclusive of all. A true Church that values the individual within the wider family. A family who strives to retain the faith that comes to us from the apostles. Quite simply we cannot endorse anything that cannot be backed by scripture, reason and tradition. For they are the yardsticks on which our faith is based.
stop press: the worst case scenario happened! Synod voted for the flimsiest of measures and in so doing have opted to cut off the Catholic Wing of the church. That the Archbishop of York stated that this was not an abandonment of us actually says it all…if not the case why did he have to stress it……..we enter dark and fascinating days and pray God the legislation does not come into effect.
?! 
