Anglican/Episcopal Ordinations

[Magnavox]

To any Anglican or Episcopal people on this forum, I have questions.

How can the Anglican/Episcopal Church ordain to be a bishop an openly homosexual male?

Also, how can you biblically or traditionally ordain women to the priesthood, or to be a bishop

Thanks.

 

[GKC]

To any Anglican or Episcopal people on this forum, I have questions.

How can the Anglican/Episcopal Church ordain to be a bishop an openly homosexual male?

Also, how can you biblically or traditionally ordain women to the priesthood, or to be a bishop

Thanks.

You really won’t get an answer to that from any Anglican/Episcopalian people on the forum. Only from certain particular Anglican/Episcopalian people.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Hokomai]

To any Anglican or Episcopal people on this forum, I have questions.

How can the Anglican/Episcopal Church ordain to be a bishop an openly homosexual male?

Also, how can you biblically or traditionally ordain women to the priesthood, or to be a bishop

Thanks.

I guess the same way the Catholic Church ordains non-Jewish celibates, and more than 12 at once time, in contradiction of clear biblical guidance to the contrary!

 

[Invictus_88]

I guess the same way the Catholic Church ordains non-Jewish celibates, and more than 12 at once time, in contradiction of clear biblical guidance to the contrary!

The Church didn’t compile the Bible until after the disciples and their successors had established the precedents that we follow today.

 

[Bluegoat]

It is hard to answer this question - the ordination of a practicing homosexual is not an invalid ordination even in the CC - if it wasit could cause a bit of trouble as there have been any number of such people in the CC.

If the question is why would they do that, I’d say because they are confused.

 

[ltwin]

It should also be noted that there is no single Anglican/Episcopal Church. The Anglican Communion is divided into provinces. For example, the province in the United States is the Episcopal Church (USA), the province in Canada is the Anglican Church of Canada, and etc.

While there is less controversy over ordaining women, there are provinces that do not ordain women. The issue of openly homosexual non-celibate clergy is highly controversial within the Anglican Communion. Churches are splitting over the issue. I suppose if you want to see a good show get a liberal Anglican and a conservative Anglican to argue over this issue.

 

[Contarini]

To any Anglican or Episcopal people on this forum, I have questions.

How can the Anglican/Episcopal Church ordain to be a bishop an openly homosexual male?

First of all, the Episcopal Church is the official American province of the Anglican Communion (though we have some dioceses outside the U.S. as well). It is presently one of two provinces (Canada being the other) that have consecrated as bishops persons openly identifying themselves as homosexual and living in what appear to be quasi-marital (and thus presumably sexual) relationships with persons of the same sex. These consecrations have been extremely controversial within the Communion. Our status as a province of the Communion is under question at the moment, even as some of the conservative provinces seem to be breaking with the Archbishop of Canterbury because they think he is too soft on us. At this point the question seems to be whether there will be a two-way or a three-way split in the Communion. Within North America, there are a number of Christian bodies identifying themselves with the Anglican tradition, rejecting the actions of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada (whether the recent ones with regard to homosexuals or the earlier actions of ordaining women and revising our respective Prayer Books) and not presently part of the Communion. Generally those who have split away more recently because of homosexuality wish to be part of the Communion; those who split away earlier over women’s ordination and Prayer Book revision do not, at least not as the Communion is presently constituted.

The important point to note with regard to ordaining homosexuals is that this is a question of moral discipline, and thus implicitly of moral teaching. It is not a question of sacramental validity, as women’s ordination is. There are conservative Catholic theologians (such as Fr. Guy Mansini) who have suggested that homosexuals are incapable of being ordained. I find this line of argument baffling and appalling. It seems to me to surrender the main point at issue between orthodox Christians and liberal “revisionists” with regard to homosexuality: whether homosexuals are in some way ontologically different from heterosexuals. If you grant this point, it seems to me that the liberal arguments would become much more compelling.

Leaving that relatively marginal position aside, the issue then is whether a person living in a sexual (or presumptively sexual) relationship with someone of the same sex is a fit person to be ordained as priest or consecrated as bishop. Traditional Christians (including myself and a number of others who so far remain in the Episcopal Church) believe that these people should not be consecrated on the basis of the following argument:

1. Persons living publicly in a manner contrary to Christian teaching should not be consecrated as bishops.
2. Sexual relationships other than marriage are contrary to Christian teaching.
3. Marriage is by its very nature a relationship between a man and a woman.
   Therefore, persons who are living publicly in presumptively sexual relationships with persons of the other sex should not be consecrated as bishops.

However, it should be noted that people guilty of a number of grave sins, sometimes publicly, have often served as bishops in the Church. And people have been known to behave in a way that gave scandal and appeared to be sinful without actually sinning (for instance, one English clergyman considered several times for an episcopal position is living in a same-sex relationship which he insists is celibate). Thus, the issue isn’t as clear-cut as conservatives often make it appear. To go into schism over a lapse in moral discipline would be to fall into the Donatist heresy.

Thus, the simple answer to your first question is that any Christian church can ordain to the episcopate men living in an openly sinful state. A church would be highly ill-advised to do so, but it’s a question of “should,” not “can.”

The bigger problem, of course, is that these recent actions reflect a rejection of traditional Christian sexual morality, and a larger pattern of indifference or even hostility to traditional Christian teaching where that teaching conflicts with modern Western secular mores. Of course, the real reason to question Anglicanism has to do with the sixteenth and not the 21st century, but that’s going way beyond what you asked. . . .

 

[Contarini]

Also, how can you biblically or traditionally ordain women to the priesthood, or to be a bishop

I’ve given my opinions on this many times, so here’s the short version.

The traditional Christian teaching is that there is one human nature, assumed by Jesus Christ for our salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas (and, perhaps less systematically and consciously, most premodern Christian teachers and leaders as far as I can see) held to Aristotle’s view that the female is an imperfect male. Thus, women are biologically imperfect in ways that prevent them from fully expressing the potential of the human nature they share with men. (This is perhaps what Fr. Mansini would argue with regard to homosexuals.)

In the absence of such an understanding, orthodox Christian doctrine seems to my fallible judgment to *mandate *opening the priesthood and episcopate to women. The only alternative, it seems to me, is to posit two separate natures, one male and the other female. This is a far more radical break with traditional Christian thought than the ordination of women itself.

Here’s a thought experiment that I don’t think I’ve suggested in this context before: if there were sentient aliens, and if they were deemed to be in need of salvation, and thus able to be baptized, could they be ordained? It seems to me that opponents of women’s ordination ought, a fortiori, to say that aliens could not be ordained, but to be open to the possibility that they could be baptized. If you find this to be a somewhat problematic possibility, then maybe you can understand a little better my problems with the Catholic Church’s present position on women’s ordination.

Note that I acknowledged explicitly above that my position is fallible. This is true not only in the obvious, objective sense that I have no charism of infallibility, but in the subjective sense that it is not, for me, a matter of conscience but a matter of theological reasoning. (I know many people for whom it is a matter of conscience, whether well or badly formed!)

 

[GKC]

It should also be noted that there is no single Anglican/Episcopal Church. The Anglican Communion is divided into provinces. For example, the province in the United States is the Episcopal Church (USA), the province in Canada is the Anglican Church of Canada, and etc.

While there is less controversy over ordaining women, there are provinces that do not ordain women. The issue of openly homosexual non-celibate clergy is highly controversial within the Anglican Communion. Churches are splitting over the issue. I suppose if you want to see a good show get a liberal Anglican and a conservative Anglican to argue over this issue.

I’ve seen that done.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I’ve given my opinions on this many times, so here’s the short version.

The traditional Christian teaching is that there is one human nature, assumed by Jesus Christ for our salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas (and, perhaps less systematically and consciously, most premodern Christian teachers and leaders as far as I can see) held to Aristotle’s view that the female is an imperfect male. Thus, women are biologically imperfect in ways that prevent them from fully expressing the potential of the human nature they share with men. (This is perhaps what Fr. Mansini would argue with regard to homosexuals.)

In the absence of such an understanding, orthodox Christian doctrine seems to my fallible judgment to *mandate *opening the priesthood and episcopate to women. The only alternative, it seems to me, is to posit two separate natures, one male and the other female. This is a far more radical break with traditional Christian thought than the ordination of women itself.

Here’s a thought experiment that I don’t think I’ve suggested in this context before: if there were sentient aliens, and if they were deemed to be in need of salvation, and thus able to be baptized, could they be ordained? It seems to me that opponents of women’s ordination ought, a fortiori, to say that aliens could not be ordained, but to be open to the possibility that they could be baptized. If you find this to be a somewhat problematic possibility, then maybe you can understand a little better my problems with the Catholic Church’s present position on women’s ordination.

Note that I acknowledged explicitly above that my position is fallible. This is true not only in the obvious, objective sense that I have no charism of infallibility, but in the subjective sense that it is not, for me, a matter of conscience but a matter of theological reasoning. (I know many people for whom it is a matter of conscience, whether well or badly formed!)

The certain, particular Anglican/Episcopalian I was primarily expecting.

GKC

 

[liturgyluver]

I’ve given my opinions on this many times, so here’s the short version.

The traditional Christian teaching is that there is one human nature, assumed by Jesus Christ for our salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas (and, perhaps less systematically and consciously, most premodern Christian teachers and leaders as far as I can see) held to Aristotle’s view that the female is an imperfect male. Thus, women are biologically imperfect in ways that prevent them from fully expressing the potential of the human nature they share with men. (This is perhaps what Fr. Mansini would argue with regard to homosexuals.)

In the absence of such an understanding, orthodox Christian doctrine seems to my fallible judgment to *mandate *opening the priesthood and episcopate to women. The only alternative, it seems to me, is to posit two separate natures, one male and the other female. This is a far more radical break with traditional Christian thought than the ordination of women itself.

Here’s a thought experiment that I don’t think I’ve suggested in this context before: if there were sentient aliens, and if they were deemed to be in need of salvation, and thus able to be baptized, could they be ordained? It seems to me that opponents of women’s ordination ought, a fortiori, to say that aliens could not be ordained, but to be open to the possibility that they could be baptized. If you find this to be a somewhat problematic possibility, then maybe you can understand a little better my problems with the Catholic Church’s present position on women’s ordination.

Note that I acknowledged explicitly above that my position is fallible. This is true not only in the obvious, objective sense that I have no charism of infallibility, but in the subjective sense that it is not, for me, a matter of conscience but a matter of theological reasoning. (I know many people for whom it is a matter of conscience, whether well or badly formed!)

I think this is a really clear and well presented argument. I agree with you completely.

 

[nhylan]

I think this is a really clear and well presented argument. I agree with you completely.

Agreed. Like Contarini I have concerns about the ordination of openly gay men and women to the Episcopate. I’m not even willing to go as far as to reason it shouldn’t be done but merely that this is something for diocese to consider. Not all diocese in the Episcopal Church will ordain the openly gay. I can’t remember which diocese it was but a bishop was recently ordained in one diocese and immediately forbid the ordaining of openly gay people in sexual relationships.

As far as women are concerned there is an excellent speech by Tom Wright online on the theological logic behind the ordination of women. its an excellent piece to understand the Anglican position. Just google N.T. Wright womens ordination.

 

[GKC]

Agreed. Like Contarini I have concerns about the ordination of openly gay men and women to the Episcopate. I’m not even willing to go as far as to reason it shouldn’t be done but merely that this is something for diocese to consider. Not all diocese in the Episcopal Church will ordain the openly gay. I can’t remember which diocese it was but a bishop was recently ordained in one diocese and immediately forbid the ordaining of openly gay people in sexual relationships.

As far as women are concerned there is an excellent speech by Tom Wright online on the theological logic behind the ordination of women. its an excellent piece to understand the Anglican position. Just google N.T. Wright womens ordination.

Given the motley crew nature of Anglicanism, make that an Anglican position, in the penultimate sentence.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[masuwerte]

There’s not much I can add which hasn’t been presented already, except perhaps my opinion. I have grave misgivings about ordaining a practicing homosexual of either gender. Such a person would make a poor role model, IMHO. OTH, I wholeheartedly support ordination of women for reasons which Contarini has explained far better than I could.

 

[Bluegoat]

Agreed. Like Contarini I have concerns about the ordination of openly gay men and women to the Episcopate. I’m not even willing to go as far as to reason it shouldn’t be done but merely that this is something for diocese to consider. Not all diocese in the Episcopal Church will ordain the openly gay. I can’t remember which diocese it was but a bishop was recently ordained in one diocese and immediately forbid the ordaining of openly gay people in sexual relationships.

As far as women are concerned there is an excellent speech by Tom Wright online on the theological logic behind the ordination of women. its an excellent piece to understand the Anglican position. Just google N.T. Wright womens ordination.

Hmm. I fit is the interview i am thinking of, I didn’t find it very convincing. He seemed to be arguing that there were women apostles, and we now know this because attempts to cover them up have been cleared up, and so women may have been priests.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

The Church didn’t compile the Bible until after the disciples and their successors had established the precedents that we follow today.

Thank you, Invictus_88. That is an important note on a serious issue.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The traditional Christian teaching is that there is one human nature, assumed by Jesus Christ for our salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas (and, perhaps less systematically and consciously, most premodern Christian teachers and leaders as far as I can see) held to Aristotle’s view that the female is an imperfect male. Thus, women are biologically imperfect in ways that prevent them from fully expressing the potential of the human nature they share with men. (This is perhaps what Fr. Mansini would argue with regard to homosexuals.)

In the absence of such an understanding, orthodox Christian doctrine seems to my fallible judgment to *mandate *opening the priesthood and episcopate to women.

I’m not quite sure what your argument here is. Are you saying that because ancient philosophers believed women to be imperfect males, that Catholics and Orthodox have been obtuse in recognizing Christ’s masculine incarnation?

 

[nhylan]

I’m not quite sure what your argument here is. Are you saying that because ancient philosophers believed women to be imperfect males, that Catholics and Orthodox have been obtuse in recognizing Christ’s masculine incarnation?

The argument is that because Christ assumed the traditionally understood “one human nature” and because the early church Fathers understanding of women is flawed this compels us to include women in ordination.

 

[colkitto]

To any Anglican or Episcopal people on this forum, I have questions.

How can the Anglican/Episcopal Church ordain to be a bishop an openly homosexual male?

Also, how can you biblically or traditionally ordain women to the priesthood, or to be a bishop

Thanks.

The question of Women or Homosexual is not as easy or clear cut as some think. The real question is regarding Holy Tradition. Ordination for Homosexuals or Women isn’t in Scripture or Tradition . It is for therefore contentious, as an Anglican I do not accept it till a General Council of the whole Church deals with the matter. It isn’t a question to be debated in heat or after a drink!

 

[Anna_Scott]

To any Anglican or Episcopal people on this forum, I have questions.

How can the Anglican/Episcopal Church ordain to be a bishop an openly homosexual male?

Also, how can you biblically or traditionally ordain women to the priesthood, or to be a bishop

Thanks.

Magnavox,
Not all Anglicans ordain women and not all Anglicans/Episcopalians believe in the ordination of those living in same-sex relationships.

One thing to consider is that the Anglican Communion is one of varied beliefs–some lean more towards Protestantism. Some lean more towards Catholicism.

The same sex issue is a complicated and heated debate within the Anglican Communion and one that is tearing the Communion apart. I think the question is whether or not Christians with such varied beliefs can remain in communion with one another. Time will tell.

As others have already stated, Episcopal Churches are already breaking away over the issues. Others remain in the Communion and work from within to restore Christian orthodoxy.

I have not found a compelling justification for the ordination of those in same-sex relationships–or even for those living in heterosexual relationships outside marriage. Our Parish is very conservative, and our Rector remains firmly against ordination of those in same-sex relationships. Though he does not object to the ordination of one of same sex affection who has taken a vow of celibacy.

I don’t believe breaking away from the Anglican Communion is the answer. There are far too many divisions within Christendom already.

Peace,
Anna