Ordaining Relativism

You can read my article in the National Catholic Register this week here. It’s about the arguments for women’s ordination in the Anglican Church, and why they were flawed.

Do Catholics evangelize? This article reports on Catholic missionary work in Mexico. Over 50,000 young Catholics out doing door-to-door visiting among the poor. The Mexicans were joined by thousands of young American Catholic students for the recent Easter mission.

About Fr. Dwight Longenecker
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04053407632823479165 UltraCrepidarian

    A well written article — thanks for sharing the link!Duly bookmarked. As a former Anglican, it’s refreshing to hear someone else felt all the same things, and worried all the same worries, and wondered about how such deeply flawed logic, and deeply flawed theology could be so easily overcome by what was in fact, a kind of political groundswell. The ultimate argument in favour of Women’s Ordination is the idea that we can make anything at all true by having a popular vote. We have perverted democracy by making it into a bully-pulpit for Relativism.I think it was Chesterton who said that Tradition was merely the idea of Democracy extended beyond the bounds of those who are currently living. Warren

  • Robin Hunt

    I felt a disconnect recently when the Old Testament lesson in the local Episcopal service was from Exodus 3. Moses asks God how He is to be named, and God replies: “‘The LORD, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: This is my name forever, and this is my title to all generations” (NRSV). Then later in the service, Eucharistic Prayer C reads “Lord God of our ancestors, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Mary, God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” That said, your critique of three arguments in favor of women’s ordination as relativistic and political (charges not without merit in too many cases) too easily dismisses a more fundamental question of what it means to be neither male nor female, but one in Christ Jesus. And your domino theory concern dismisses a distinction that can be made between the status of women and of homosexuality. On one hand, I am concerned that Western Protestantism is setting off to a Brave New World without having done in the old one the work that needs doing. And on the other hand, scripture that seems full of instances where the apparently authoritative view gets turned on its head.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17120108669030817877 my15minutes

    What Robin said. I follow your arguments, and in actuality sympathize with them (my gut response is the conservative one). But how then to deal with the abuses of patriarchy? What then does justice look like? Slavery was once first justified by tradition and scripture; then as the ethos of the culture evolved and strong, compassionate voices were raised, was came to be regarded as an evil. There’s a sense in which civil rights, minority rights, women’s rights all follow this same pattern. And the church as a force for justice has to come up with a satisfying, positive answer. I understand and appreciate your arguments; i just wonder what then IS a satisfying response to a culture which has moved on….?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12373317560249811006 Fr. Dwight Longenecker

    Indeed, and that is why, in the article, I said that the arguments from sentimentality, utility and ‘justice’ were arguments to be heard and reckoned with, but that a greater authority also has to be heard and reckoned with: an authority which said these three arguments must be answered, but they do not carry the day.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12979270225950352413 anon

    good stuff


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X