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.