Friday, June 08, 2007

the principle of arrogance

Though many will continue to deny it, the principles used to justify the ordination of women as priests and bishops, when watered and cultivated, grew into the justification for homosexual priests (and bishops) and for homosexual “marriage.” Those who cannot see the clear connection and progression are, I suspect, simply blinding themselves to the plain, glaring facts of history.

Read it all in the Living Church.


J-Tron said...

You (and Fr. Spencer) assume incorrectly that 1) The same rationale is used by all advocates of women's ordination in TEC, 2) This is also the rationale used by other Anglican provinces where women have been ordained, 3) That this rationale, so crudely stated, is the majority understanding amongst women clergy themselves, and most problematically 3) That among the many arguments put forth for why ordaining women is a good idea that there isn't a consistent, Catholic argument to be made (which, of course, there is).

father wb said...

JT -

Fr Spencer wasn't talking about "all advocates of women's ordination" everywhere. He was talking specifically about General Convention in 1973 and 1976. I think he (and I) are assuming that Gen. Con. speaks for TEC, since other organs of TEC keep insisting on that particular point.

I honestly don't have any idea about other Anglican Provinces, nor "women clergy themselves" -- I would assume in the case of the latter that there would be a wide spectrum of notions. I have read Sarah Coakley's piece called something like "The Woman at the Altar: Cosmological Distubrance or Gender Subversion." I guess she thinks WO is a gender subversion and a good thing. Hers is the best theology I've yet read on the issue from the "other side", from a catholic-minded point of view. But I still wasn't convinced. (For what its worth, I think she fails to account for "matter mattering" -- as I like to say -- as well as for historical data of the faith, like the exclusive maleness of the Apostles.)

I do think there is a "consistent argument" to be made, but I don't think its catholic. But then, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "catholic". I mean what the Church has always meant. And the Church has never tried to ordain women. And there's a definite connection between meaning and praxis -- what Wittgenstein calls a "language game" and a "form of life".

Tangentially: what's interesting to me now is that liberals and catholics tend to agree about the connection between WO and the gay stuff. Its just that whereas catholics think all is illicit, liberals think all is okay. I'm obviously generalizing a bit. But its really the evangelicals who puzzle me.

Thoughtful comment, as always. Thanks.

J-Tron said...

I somehow managed to have "3" twice. How delightfully postmodern of me. ;-)