A commenter on an earlier post asked me my opinion of the women priests in the Anglican Church as I worked with them. Were they sillier or more radical or more whatever than the male priests?
One of the interesting findings about the women priests in the Church of England was that they are more theologically liberal than their male counterparts. Women priests were more likely to be liberal in their views of Christian morality as well. This is based on a survey done by Forward in Faith some years ago.
My own experience was simple: women priests were no more silly or politically driven or immoral or lazy or poor preachers or pastors than the men. Of course there were silly, stupid, vain and proud women priests. Ditto the men. There were caring, intelligent, kind, funny and humble men priests. Ditto the women.
In fact, during the debate over this issue in the Church of England I was resolved to be open minded and fair. I listened to both sides of the debate, and the fact that I did is what led me to the Catholic Church.
What I discovered was this: both sides had some good arguments. They argued well from Scripture, tradition, sociology, psychology, history etc. Both sides had experts. They wheeled in their theologians, psychologists, Scripture scholars, linguistic experts, church historians etc. etc. Both sides were passionate that they were right. Both sides were confident that they were being led by the Holy Spirit. Both sides had prayerful, nice, Christian, concerned, intelligent people.
How then was one to decide? Was one to take a vote? We did and it really didn’t settle anything. when those who were in favor lost they did not say, “Well, the Holy Spirit has spoken through the General Synod’s vote. We were wrong. The question is settled.” No, they said, “We will have to campaign harder and bring it up again in five years’ time.” When the vote finally went in their favor did those opposed say, “Ah well, the Spirit has spoken, He is leading us into a wonderful innovation in the church’s ministry?” Alas, no. They said, “We want our own bishops. We want our opt out clauses. We shall stay in and fight this abominable innovation.”
For my part, I realized that there needed to be another authority–larger and more ancient than the Church of England General Synod to make the ruling. Then a few years later the Holy Father said very simply and clearly, “The Church does not have the authority to ordain women as priests.”
At that point dear old dunderheaded George Carey, speaking of the Pope’s statement said, “Duhh. We would like to seek clarification on this.”
By that time it seemed very clear indeed. The Church of England had not simply voted in favor of women priests. She had also voted decided once and for all about what kind of an ecclesial body she really was. Any idea that she was a branch of the ancient, one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church faded like the morning mist in July.
Father thanks for your thoughts on this issue. I usually do not stick my nose in other peoples business but there is a rummor of sorts that the orthodox church and the Anglican Communion were is serious talks around the issue of unification until the vote you mention was taken. As with Rome, the orthodox church would be able to reconcile women priests. Alas we continue to pray!
I am a convert of 14 years, after a 10-year “pit stop” in the Episcopal Church. One of the hardest things for me was reconciling a woman priest friend I had with RC’s teaching on priesthood. She told me the story of her “calling,” and in fact was quite shocked herself when she realized what was happening to her. She did not grow up longing to be a priest. She was quite orthodox in belief and practice, and obviously impacted my life immeasurably. She is now dead, and I often think of her. Even though I place myself in the more conservative/orthodox/traditional camp of RC, I still have to intentionally assent to RC’s teaching on woman priest. I appreciate your post.
Thanks Father. I’m not surprised that women priests are more theologically liberal than men, since many theologically conservative women would not agree that women should be priests, and so would take themselves out of the sample.Good point about voting on doctrine till it changes. A church that’ll do that has no claim to bind the consciences of the faithful.
Would the deficiencies in Anglican sacramental theology mean that an Anglican priest is a profoundly different thing from a Catholic priest? Anglican clerics aren’t called to be alter Christus. I don’t really see anything barring women priests under this faulty definition.
Praisedivinemercy, I’m the same “Anonymous” above. Great question, and one that I have asked myself many times. Maybe Fr. Longenecker could chime in with some insight.
When I was an Anglican priest we went to a clergy fraternal meeting and the local Catholic priest (a crusty old Irishman) was there.One of the women was about to be ordained, and he said, “Well now Cathy. I wish you well. I’ll be praying for you.”I was shocked. How could the Catholic priest be in favor of women’s ordination? Then I realized he didn’t actually think any of us were priests, so it didn’t matter if she were ordained. He could wish her well in all charity.
All this is reminding me of a Catholic lady I knew in Pennsylvania. She had always wanted to be a priest, so she became an Episcopalian, not really understanding that someone with her seriously liberal views would find more tolerance at the local Newman Center than in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. They made her a deacon before she gave it up as a bad job and returned home.