Friday, December 07, 2007

The only advocate of a limited WO position on staff

Matt Kennedy of Stand Firm in Faith has clarified the position of that blog on the subject of women's "ordination." In response to my report on the banning of Dr. William Tighe, Kennedy writes:

Dr. Tighe is indeed a brilliant man...an incredibly able defender of the classic position on WO. And yet we have many excellent defenders of the very same position advocated by Dr. Tighe, 3 of them are on the staff of Stand Firm, who do not regularly transgress the clearly stated policies of the website by inserting their brilliant and apt arguments on unrelated threads. I am, in fact, the only advocate of a limited WO position on staff and I am in the process of rethinking that at the moment. The assertion that having these opinions and arguing effectively for them will get you banned is simply a falsehood.

He had earlier described his "limited WO position" in these words: "I do not believe women can hold primary leadership in a parish or diocese."

Whereas we can be glad that most of the staff of SFIF rejects women's "ordination," it is instructive to understand the distinction between the truly orthodox position, and that put forward by Evangelicals based on the Wayne Grudem argument. The conclusions by Grudem are correct in themselves, but limited to the concepts of headship and natural sex roles. The thinking expressed in this paradigm separates women's "ordination" from two things: Sacramental theology and history.

The notion that Same Sex Blessings can be taken on and battled by people who accept women's "ordination," and that these should be treated, or even can be treated, as unrelated topics, shows a failure to grasp what is at issue, and what has, in fact, happened. For the theology I quote our brother Ed Pacht:

The Catholic Faith is not an amalgam of this belief and that belief and this other one, but rather a seamless tissue of interconnected parts, each affecting the way others are perceived and believed.

Thus a belief in the validity of female ordination impacts an increasing circle of other beliefs.
For instance: one may have a thoroughly orthodox-appearing belief in the Real and Objective Presence in the Sacrament, but one is asserting this real presence to be extant in situations where Traditional Catholics consider it impossible, i.e. when "consecrated" by a woman. If one believes this consecration to be objectively impossible, then one believes the hosts in the tabernacle that are so consecrated to be mere bread, and not an object of adoration, while the believer in such ordination falls to his knees before it.
Furthermore, no matter what one's view is of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, it does make a difference whether the celebrant is a valid priest or not. In the latter case, as surely as there is no presence, there is no sacrifice. To worship what is not God or to offer what is not an acceptable sacrifice are not laudable acts.

When there are female bishops, the problem compounds, since one has to do detective work to ascertain by whom a male priest was ordained BEFORE assisting at Mass or bowing before the tabernacle.

Does it make a difference in Eucharistic theology whether females are considered valid priests or not? You bet it does.

One's belief in the relation of gender to ordination also impinges upon one's anthropology and thus one's Christology. Either the sexes are interchangeable or they are quite distinct. If they are distinct, then maleness is an integral part of Christ's humanity, and He is seen in one way. If they are interchangeable, then maleness is a mere accident and He is seen differently. These are not irrelevancies in theology. One's view of them affects most theological matters one way or another.

The disavowal of gender roles, moreover, tends (as is amply illustrated in the changed outlook in ECUSA and ACoC) toward alterations in traditional moral theology and specifically in the view and practice of marriage.

Sorry, _____, but, simply on the basis of the one issue of female ordination, I indeed do, and must, look at your entire theological position with a good deal of reservation, even suspicion, as I have to see this one view as having warped your position into a something that is no longer Catholic...

About history I will quote myself:

The fact is, once the "ordination" of women was accepted, the movement to bless same sex unions was inevitable. The arguments for Homosexualism are not merely similar to the arguments for women's "ordination." Rather, they are the
exact same arguments. The blessing of same sex unions, practiced now throughout the heretical but official Canterbury Communion, is performed as a church rite by sincerely lusting couples under the direction of clergypersons of both sexes and all genders, to be as close to the semblance of marriage as the Law of each state, province or nation makes possible. In short, it imitates the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and does so on the newly understood basis that the sex of a person has no significance in a sacrament. If Shirley and Maggie can be "ordained" they can also be married, and so can Adam and Steve...Perhaps you only meant to let women be priests, but not to let the premise take its own logical course to the final end. However, the premise itself is subject to the gravity of logic, and must keep rolling until you are "blessing" Adam and Steve in the imitation sacrament of Unholy Unmatrimony. Those who want to argue that this was not inevitable have two problems facing them: First, we predicted this would happen, and second, it has.

Treating these two heresies as separate and unrelated is the problem. This is what Dr. Tighe tried to explain to them.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The assertion that having these opinions and arguing effectively for them will get you banned is simply a falsehood."

Here we have evidence of a sad inability to distinguish between one's opinion and reality itself.
This man (and how long has he claimed to be "reconsidering" his "limited" pro-WO position?) believes his own opinion to be no less than absolute truth, and anyone with another opinion is simply a "liar."

As for the alleged anti-WO personnel of his blog, well, they consisently say "it's not a salvation issue," or it's an "adiaphoron." Hardly a defense of the apostolic ministry as Catholic churchmen have understood it. Not unlike the person who says, "I'm personally against adortion, but I respect the rights of the mother." Just an adiaphoron, not a salvation issue. Dead fetuses and invalid sacraments happeen this way. To claim that the management of SF is predominately against WO is somewhere long the grey fringe between truth and falsehood.
Laurence K. Wells

poetreader said...

Fr. Hart.
I'm honored that you chose to quote me on this issue. I've had some correspondence with Mr. Griffith of SF, who does profess to oppose WO, but refuses rather heatedly to permit discussion of the link between that and homosexualism. The following is quoted from my response to him:
-----------------------
I'm sorry, but your explanation leaves me less comfortable than before. As an AngloCatholic I see Apostolic succession as a core issue. On the succession depends the certainty of the sacraments, which, in turn are at the very center of God's chosen way of ministering His grace to His people. If (as I maintain) it is not merely undesirable, but impossible to make a woman a priest, then the Eucharist and other sacraments are made problematic at best and void at worst. Thus to admit WO, even as something to endure for the moment, is to espouse a view of sacraments as less than necessary. The very nature of church and ministry is vitally affected by this issue.

That leads us to the question of why this should be. Though Scripture, particularly the NT is quite firm in declaring the equality of men and women, it is equally firm in declaring a difference. In other words, gender roles are strongly upheld in Scripture. The practice of homosexuality is out-of-place on the same basis as the ordination of women. It is a breaking down of divinely instituted distinctions. This is more than mere theory, but is demonstrated in the history of contemporary religion. The same arguments advanced in the 70s for WO are the foundation of the case for homosexualism today. It is an act of mental gymnastics to demolish the argument in the case of the latter and leave it in place for the former. Frankly, no one is going to be convinced that way on the strength of the logic used. It does not hold up. In the long run, if any hold strongly to WO, the affirmation (or even permission) of this position gives support to the arguments for same-sex relationships and will ultimately destriy opposition to that.

Why did Gene Robinson produce such a flurry of anger? I submit that it is not theological, but rather emotional. It's not the theological reasoning, but the Yuk factor. I detect a decidedly sub-Christian revulsion toward not only the sin, but toward particular sinners in the uproar. I consider it a distinct cause for shame that it was not the Trinity, nor the Incarnation, nor the Atonement, nor the sacramental life of the Church, nor any other of the countless major theological issues that have poisoned ECUSA, but revulsion toward a particular class of persons and their activities that resulted in the current debacle of Anglicanism. In fact, insofar as division expresses a hatred of persons (which for many -- far from all -- it does) then the division, in itself, regardless of other theological issues, is, in itself, grievously sinful.
-------------------------------
Full disclosure:

1. I am a member of TAC, which left ECUSA over a range of theological issues, WO being a leading one.

2. I am a same-sex attracted male, thoroughly committed to celibacy, but thoroughly aware that something in my makeup makes me different. Homosexual practice is distinctly forbidden by God's Word, To engage in such is indeed grievously sinful. However, there is that in me (where it comes from I know not, but it is certainly real) that causes temptation to take 'non-standard' forms. So frequently when this becomes known I witness the Yuk factor in its full force. Jesus calls sinners. It is with sinners that he spent his time on earth. It is for sinners that he made the one true and perfect Sacrifice. When homosex becomes the main issue in the foreground, the Church becomes, not a place that loves gay men and wants to lead them to salvation, but a place where loathing dominates and entry at least appears barred. An active and obvious welcome needs to be seen at least as strongly as the insistence on holiness of living. There are many other sins, at least as evil as this one that are tolerated with very little remark among Anglicans. I think, for instance, of cupidity. We tend to love the rich, often ignoring the sin that got them there.

Homosexualism and WO, along with the prevalence of divorce and of premarital cohabitation are inextricably linked as expressions of a denial of God's plan for the role of the sexes. If this link is off-topic, then there is nothing rational worth discussing in this vital area.

In short, under these conditions, while there are many areas in which we stand in agreement, I'm not at all sure whether to consider you and the new wave of Anglican separatists to be allies or part of the problem itself.
-----------------------
ed

Sandra McColl said...

Well put, Ed. I love the 'theological, not emotional' point: it's what I've described elsewhere in a combox as 'a prurient obsession with other people's sins'. In post-WO Anglicanism, we have on the one hand the likes of 'Affirming Catholicism'--a group whose very name stands in direct contradiction of the dominical requirement that we deny ourselves (mind you, we all fail miserably on that score every day)--thrusting the homosexualist agenda in our faces (along with the 'Inclusive Church' position that ordination should not be denied to anyone on the basis not only of sexuality but also of sex--aha! a connection). On the other hand we have a desacramentalised protestant sect that has reduced the Faith from the mystery of our salvation to a moral code, and which seems at times to have reduced the moral code to a single issue. In all, we now have the situation in which the sideshow has usurped the position of the main attraction out of which it grew, but where it is regarded as 'off topic' to relate the one to the other. Some enemy has done this.

Anonymous said...

The fact is, once the "ordination" of women was accepted, the movement to bless same sex unions was inevitable. The arguments for Homosexualism are not merely similar to the arguments for women's "ordination." Rather, they are the exact same arguments.

I'm not sure about "exact same," but certainly "largely overlapping and closely connected."

As evidence for which I offer the following passage from the recent pastoral letter of Bishop Minns of CANA:

In light of this I propose the following:

• We will keep our promise to honor both integrities within CANA and fulfill our commitment to the full participation of women, in the life and leadership of the church.
We will seek to do so in such a manner that both those who are unable to support the ordination of women and those who embrace it will know that their position has been
honored.


• We will continue to accept applications from qualified congregations and female clergy
with the expectation that women clergy will be licensed to continue their ministry within CANA. We will request permission of the Church of Nigeria to ordain appropriately
qualified women candidates to the diaconate within CANA as soon as possible.


• We will continue to look to a task force to continue work on this issue. We will expect them to develop a unified recommendation regarding ways in which we maintain our commitment to both integrities and at the same time provide the necessary theological framework pastoral procedures and canonical provision for the ordination of qualified women to the presbyterate within CANA.


I am fully aware that this is a topic of concern for many clergy and congregations throughout
CANA and one that produces intense reactions. It is therefore my prayer that we will take these
next steps looking for the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth and guard our common life and
witness.


Now simply substitute "pluriform truths" for "both integrities" and "LGBT" for "women" and every other word in this text could have been written by Frank Griswold.

People keep supposing that it is somehow an acceptable compromise for the people drinking the kool-aid to offer us a cup with only half the cyanide. They just---don't---get---it.

I'd rather not say

agrarian said...

IRNS,

Thanks for the very revealing information. The much vaunted Martyn Minns would appear to be a buffoon. We see now that, in truth, the CANA cult will be merely a mirror image of the ECUSA cult, neither side giving a durn what Christians have always and everywhere believed, nor what Scripture says in that light. SS is a deal breaker for communion, but the similarly unorthodox WO is not. Ergo, one side happens to think sexual perversion is cool while the other side happens to think it's yucky. Real committed Christians here.... My will, not Thy Will.

Not to be too hokey, but the whole thing reminds me of that episode of Star Trek wherein Kirk is somehow split into two in a transporter mishap. There is the "good" Kirk and the "bad" Kirk (and I will not assign the sides). As it turns out, neither "Kirk" can live without the other, and both must be merged into the original Kirk before both "sides" die.

The "reasserters" here establish that they truly have no legitimate grievance with ECUSA (they are not the "orthodox" Christians they claim to be) and really have no business going their own way. The two sides, both compromised by modernity, do indeed need each other. Perhaps the Anglophile Vichy crowd at Covenant-Communion is right after all, in their own bizarre way. I am just glad I am free and clear of all parties concerned.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

What the SFIF folks fail to understand, is that conservative mainstream Anglicans who accept women's "ordination" differ from those who favor same sex blessing only by degree. We see them all as people who are not in our camp, spiritually and theologically. They are in the Revisionist camp.

They are in Gene Robinson's camp, Griswold's camp, and Ms. Schori's camp, even if they feel the "yuk factor" about homosexuals from the bottom of the hearts.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how soon we will be told that "I'm personally opposed to SSB, but it's not a salvation issue," or "Sodomy is sinful but its an adiaphoron." Oops, I forgot, the term "sodomy," like the term "priestess," is verboten at SFIF.
Laurence K. Wells

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Forbidden words? That seems like an Orwellian (as in 1984) method of forbidding thoughts. The more I learn about SFIF the less impressive they become.

agrarian said...

Fr. Wells wrote:

I wonder how soon we will be told that "I'm personally opposed to SSB, but it's not a salvation issue," or "Sodomy is sinful but its an adiaphoron."

I'm looking forward to the "headship" arguments.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I can't help but wonder how much of "the yuk factor" is a revulsion to homosexual temptations, and how much is a revulsion to celibacy.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Minn's remarks are now up at Stand Firm. I've already commented there. Anyone else care to try?

Anonymous said...

The SF thread re: Minns' pro-WO utterance may be a turning-point for them. The most revealing posting so far was that of the Ice-queen Sarah Hey, a response to IRNS's discerning analysis. She clearly showed that she just doesn't get it. As another later posting (from someone inside CANA) shows, Minns, however, may not have the final word on this topic.

Right now both AMIA and CANA are very busy putting dots on the map. This will lead to a certain degree of fudging--reminiscent of the manner in which the CC started fudging on divorced and remarried clergy back in the St Louis era.
Had an annoncement been made at St Louis, "you are going to hear about a lot of annulments, and you will see a lot of DAR clergy," a lot of people would have said, "I'm not getting on this train-ride!" But the severe problem of staffing new missions was overwhelming, so the compromise was quickly made. The neo-Anglicans are anxious to present the picture of rapid growth, so they are fudging on WO.
This is the proverbial "house divided against itself."

I chatted last week with an ECUSA priest in another state, a lifelong friend, and asked him about an alleged AMIA church plant in his town, a small city in the Carolinas with only two Episcopal churches, with combined mebership of less than a 1,000 people. He assured me that nobody there had ever heard of this mission, and nobody could find out anything about it. Evidently a paper church. Sound familiar?
Laurence K. Wells

John A. Hollister said...

1. Fr. Hart wrote, "The fact is, once the 'ordination' of women was accepted, the movement to bless same sex unions was inevitable. The arguments for Homosexualism are not merely similar to the arguments for women's 'ordination.' Rather, they are the exact same arguments."

Well, they are similar arguments but they are slightly different in content, or at least in application. We must never forget that when ECUSA's General Convention assumed to itself the power to decree women's "ordination", it was openly departing from two millenia of consensus about the ontological requirements for ordination.

It is no small matter to assert a new position on the consequences of a person's essential being. With the question of openly tolerating sodomy, however, T?C's officials and assemblies were only considering issues of behavior, not of being. The Church has a long experience of dealing with human sin of all stripes and in some periods, the Renaissance and the 18th Century just as much as in our own day, has fallen short of openly calling its people to live moral lives.

So Vicki Gene Robinson is by no means unique in being an actively homosexual cleric; the Church has endured many such. Where he represents a departure is simply that the authorities of his church no longer consider it necessary to exercise hypocrisy, which as someone pointed out "is the homage vice pays to virtue".

In other words, T?C has now abandoned even the pretence of upholding traditional moral standards, which is, except for a very few ancient Manicaean sects or the Medieval Cathars, a distinct departure into new territory.

And, from an historical and sociological perspective, once T?C had swallowed the ontological camel of women's "ordination", the abandonment of its formal moral teachings in order to promote homosexual behavior was a very small gnat, indeed.

2. IRNS quoted Bp. Minns as writing for CANA that "We will keep our promise to honor both integrities within CANA and fulfill our commitment to the full participation of women, in the life and leadership of the church.
We will seek to do so in such a manner that both those who are unable to support the ordination of women and those who embrace it will know that their position has been honored. We will continue to accept applications from qualified congregations and female clergy
with the expectation that women clergy will be licensed to continue their ministry within CANA. We will request permission of the Church of Nigeria to ordain appropriately qualified women candidates to the diaconate within CANA as soon as possible. ... we will take these next steps looking for the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth and guard our common life and witness."

INRS has already commented on Bp. Minns' oxymoron about "two integrities" when he really meant "to irreconcilable truths". It is striking, however, that the Bishop expects the Holy Spirit, in contradiction to Christ's own promise to His Church, to lead us into this fatal confusion. It strikes me this may be moving in the direction of that most mysterious "Sin against the Holy Ghost", the one which we are told is the only unforgivable one.

Further, the Bishop offers no explanation, let alone any credible explanation, of why he feels it is acceptable to "ordain" women but to restrict their "ordinations" to the diaconate. Does he, like obsolete Roman theologians, believe that each grade of Holy Order is a separate Sacrament? Is he some sort of sexist who thinks women "qualify" for ordination, but just barely, so they must be held down to its lower ranks?

This is the sort of thinking that led so many to sit back quietly and endure T?C's purported "ordinations" of women as deacons and priests but who then said, "Oh, well, when they try to consecrate a woman as bishop, that'll be going too far!"

As St. Paul tells us very clearly, anyone who can be a deacon can, at least in theory, be a bishop. Oops, forgive me, I forgot: Scripture no longer means what it says, it means what 815 says. How passe of me.

3. Mr. Pacht wrote, "There are many other sins, at least as evil as this one that are tolerated with very little remark among Anglicans. I think, for instance, of cupidity. We tend to love the rich, often ignoring the sin that got them there."

I don't mean to belittle Mr. Pacht's very serious and highly apposite point, but the way he phrased this ineluctably reminded me of a newspaper comic strip I saw years ago down South. Called "Kudzu", one of its featured characters was a preacher in a shovel hat who felt God had called him to a much-neglected ministry, the church's outreach to the well-to-do....

John A. Hollister+

agrarian said...

Anonymous wrote:

Bishop Minn's remarks are now up at Stand Firm. I've already commented there. Anyone else care to try?


I tried but could not.

There is currently a thread up at SF concerning WO and the Church of Finland, something for which Dr. William Tighe is the ideal correspondent and commentator. He indeed formulated a response which, naturally, he could not post there himself having been banned for forthrightly maintaining the inextricable and undeniable link between WO and SS (i.e. pointing out that SF's emperor has no clothes). So I posted it for him. This is what I submitted:


[begin]

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8193/#154573

Obviously, Dr. William Tighe would be the resident authority on this matter and he could provide uniquely invaluable context. I consulted him and he indeed provided invaluable background and detail. But since he is no longer permitted to post at Stand Firm, I
will include his comment in my post for the benefit of all interested parties:



Dr. William J. Tighe wrote:

This is newsworthy, but hardly new. It is only in the last two years that the Finns have turned "persecutory" on the subject of WO -- but they are following precedents set in Sweden, where the ordination (whether as deacons or priests) of anyone opposed to WO has been banned since 1993; but in Sweden there have not, as yet, been court cases brought against such men.

When the Church of Finland finally accepted WO in 1982 (after the measure failing previously on five occasions since 1962, due to the fact that its passage required a 75% majority of those voting at the Church Assembly) there were wide and warm assurances that the consciences of individual clergymen opposed to WO would be respected and that men opposed to WO would continue to be ordained -- just as happened in Sweden when WO came in there in 1958. But whereas in Sweden it took about 25 years for the "conscience clause" that accompanied the 1958 WO measure to be abrogated, in Finland it took little more than 15 years for these
unofficial assurances to begin to be ignored. In both countries, however, it was not until the last bishops opposed to WO had retired (Bertil Gartner of Gothenburg in Sweden in 1991 and Olavi Rimpilainen of Oulu in 2003 in Finland) and been replaced by proponents that the campaign for proscription of opponents moved into full gear. (In Denmark, where
women have been "ordained" since 1948 and the last bishop opposed to WO retired in 1968, opponents, always few in number and divided between Confessionalist Lutherans and "highchurchmen," have continued to be ordained, and in Norway, where women have been "ordained" since 1961, great care was taken to protect the consciences of the opponents and relatively few women were ordained before the 1980s; and it was only with the appointment of a woman bishop in 1992 and the retirement [in one case] and the change of mind on the WO issue [in the other] of the two remaining Norwegian Lutheran bishops who had opposed WO AND the simultaneous arrival of the movement for SS that the movement for proscription began.)

The parallels with ECUSA are obvious, and with the retirement (or "departure") of Schofield, Iker and Ackerman (and their dioceses, I hope), I expect the same to happen here. I suppose it will be just a
matter of time before it happens in the Church of England, but not perhaps for a decade or more.



If anybody wishes to discuss the matter with Dr. Tighe, I believe he is now posting on related topics at the Continuum blog.
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com

[end]


I successfully posted this to the thread at SF Friday night and it almost immediately vanished without a trace. No standard comment from the "Commenatrix," no comment about "post deleted," indeed no sign that the post had ever even existed on the thread. Unfortunately, no one following this should be the least bit surprised by SF's behavior at this point.

Well, today I went to post to this thread which reveals Bp. Minns' incompetence and unworthiness for ordination. I logged in at SF and got the standard screen which confirms that you have successfully logged in. However, almost immediately, the screen jumped to a screen reading "System down. The site is currently offline." I got back to SF's homepage and hit the link to the most recent comment (at the time, IRNS' of 7:39 this morning, if I remember correctly). This too produced the screen about "System down. The site is currently offline." So I returned to the homepage, turned off my cookies, and again hit the link to the same most recent post IRNS. With cookies off, and therefore no indication of my identity, the good doctor's post, and the whole thread, loaded normally.

Another poster subsequently logged into his account and assured me that he had no trouble. And a bit later I again tried to log in myself only to get the "System down. The site is currently offline" screen." So it would seem that I have not been banned, yet I cannot post. In other words, I have not been de jure banned, but I have indeed been de facto banned. Very clever!

It should not need to be stated at this point, but just in case it is, let me confirm that orthodox Christians (those who, among other things, do not delude themselves about the inextricable link between WO and SS) need not apply at SF; only "hip," modernist, egalitarian bigots who just happen to agree that homosex is "yucky" and that homosexuals are somehow subhuman and unworthy of the cure of the soul which the Church provides. I might add that, as far as I know, nearly a week later, Dr. Tighe is still unable to post at Titusonenine (not even SF!) due to an alleged software glitch, all because of the profound silliness emanating from the Laodiceans at "Stand Firm in Faith."

poetreader said...

Touche!

Actually, the Church does have a special ministry to the well-to-do. The same one Our Lord exercised toward the rich young ruler. We are called to teach them how to become poor. Or, more seriously, how to hold loosely to thr things of the world that they have probably been holding far too tightly.

ed

Fr. Robert Hart said...

John Hollister wrote:
It is no small matter to assert a new position on the consequences of a person's essential being. With the question of openly tolerating sodomy, however, T?C's officials and assemblies were only considering issues of behavior, not of being.

But, it is a matter of one's essential being when the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is purported to be a genuine reality between two people of the same sex, just as it is a matter of one's essential being when a woman is allegedly ordained. And, yes, Same Sex Blessing is clearly meant to be thought of as a marriage, at least within the alleged church, only it is named in such a way as to prevent ECUSA from violating the law.

So, the arguments are exactly the same. Due to their innovative take on the meaning of baptism, the sex of an individual is not relevant in a sacrament, neither in ordination nor in marriage (Not to mention the arguments for believing that the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing, "now it shall spring forth;" so that the Traditional teaching of scripture is no longer relevant).

"You can't have one without the other."

Sandra McColl said...

I don't know if I'm adding anything by reporting that I once saw in the combox a comment which I think sums up a lot of the position of those who think that purporting to ordain women is within the bounds of orthodoxy:

'It's not a sin to be a woman.'

At the time I was too knocked off my chair to reply. If I had, I expect it should have been along the lines of: 'Well, folks, you show me one bishop, priest or deacon who isn't a sinner. . .'

Anonymous said...

The Rev. Mr Kennedy clarifies his position on priestesses today:

"If you are opposed to Women’s ordination, be prepared to coexist in the same body, though not in full communion, with ordained women and those who support their ordination. If you cannot do that because you believe the ordination of women to be a first order matter, then you will not likely last long in the Common Cause Partnership."

This sounds like a veiled threat. Thanks for the heads up Matt; I wasn't studying to jine up with CCP nohow.