The BBC and the San Diego Union-Tribune are reporting on the recent conversations taking place in the Anglican Church on the possibility of allowing for female bishops. At this point it seems pretty much like a foregone conclusion that women bishops is going to happen simply because of turns that have already taken place in the Church of England, which is a point now being made by Anglican liberals.
Says the BBC: "Many Anglicans believe the argument over women bishops was settled more than a decade ago when women were first ordained as priests." And then:
Many liberal Anglicans say it's anomalous to have women priests but not bishops, and say the damage to fraternal relations with opponents of women's ordination - such as the Roman Catholic Church - was done long ago when the first women were ordained as women priests.
The Union-Tribune observed that many Anglicans left the Church of England in 1992 when the decision was first made to allow the ordination of women, who now make up about a sixth of the Anglican priesthood.
The most insightful explication and defense of the Catholic position on women's ordination that I've encountered comes from Peter Kreeft, philosophy of religion professor at Boston College. Among his insights is the observation that often (though not always) people who favor women's ordination also favor abortion "rights." I would suggest that this makes sense, as both issues seem to be fueled by the same motive: empowerment.
Sure enough, as the Anglican Church is now discussing the possibility of woman bishops, Virtue Online: the Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism reported January 17 that "the Episcopal Church recently reaffirmed its membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice." The Episcopal Church is only the American extension of the Anglican Communion, but such catastrophes are bound to happen when the agenda of empowerment, either of women or of men, or of any particular interest, is permitted to advance undiscerned.
Indeed, these issues are connected, as is the question of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the Episcopal Bishopric. Most recently the controversy over appointing an openly and practicing homosexual priest as a bishop created deep division in the Episcopal Church. But it was a natural next step. It makes sense that appointing women priests would soon destroy any pretense of sexual orthodoxy in general on the part of the Episcopal Church. The shared premise in this case is egalitarianism--i.e. sexual sameness under the guise of equality. The argument goes that if man and woman are equal in dignity and worth, they must be the same.
The Catholic Church has never bought this line of thinking. In fact, John Paul II pretty well smacked it down. The Anglican Church took it hook line and sinker, 14 years ago. They had to in order to justify women's ordination.
But once sexual differences--that make men and women distinct and thus provide for the authentic complementarity of conjugal love--are discarded, then that complementarity becomes a red herring, and homosexual practice becomes a valid option. Men and women both lose in the egalitarian mindset, because masculinity and feminity are both destroyed. And in this case, it may divide the Anglican Church to the point of complete disintegration.
Let it never be said, then, that commitment to orthodox or traditional positions is less desirable because such positions would be "divisive." We are seeing on display before us how the abandonment of the traditions started by Christ himself lead not to greater unity but to disastrous division.
We talk of the "seamless garment" of the Catholic faith and particularly Catholic moral and social teaching. It appears that there could also be a seamless garment of error. Error (under the guise of "compromise") in one area can lead to quite catastrophic mistakes in others. It's all connected.
Leave a comment