The issue of women’s ordination is one comparatively minor aspect of the much larger issue of our times: the destruction and distortion of human sexuality and ultimately the destruction and distortion of the human race itself.
The ordination of women in the Church of England was the catalyst for my conversion to the Catholic Church in the early 1990s. It was not the issue of women’s ordination itself which caused me to leave the Church of England, but the question of women’s ordination raised the greater question of authority in the church. “Where does one turn for the answer when sincere and prayerful Christians disagree on crucial matters?”
This is the Protestant problem: Where does one turn to resolve serious disagreements in the church? Scripture alone won’t do because both sides will have their own interpretation of the Scripture. The Protestant answer must always be either, “This is not such an important issue that it should divide us. We must stay together for the sake of church unity”; or, “Only one of us can be right so, we must part ways.” St John Henry Newman summed up the dilemma (I am paraphrasing): “Dogmatic Christianity must have an infallible authority else it falls into either the sectarian or the latitudinarian error. The sectarian sacrifices unity of form for unity of doctrine while the latitudinarian sacrifices unity of doctrine for unity of form.” I came to realize that the question of women’s ordination was indeed an important issue, and in the intervening years have come to see it as a defining issue not only for church polity and practice, but also for the integrity of the Christian gospel and indeed, the integrity of the whole human family.
Those who were arguing in favor of women’s ordination in the Church of England thirty years ago had three basic arguments: sentimental, political, and practical. The sentimental was, “Jenny is such a kind and prayerful person. She’s a loving mum and wife. She really feels called to priesthood. It is very unkind and unChristian to deny her wish to be a priest.” The political argument was one of social justice. “Women are repressed by a male dominated society. It’s time for justice and equal rights!” The practical was perhaps the most trenchant and difficult to answer: “We have women doctors and lawyers and women prime ministers. Women can do the job just as well as men. Why stop them? What’s the point?”
While these arguments are still put forward by the activists pushing for female ordination in the Catholic Church, I have noticed a new strain of argument which, thirty years ago, was implicit in the movement, but which remained unspoken. It is an extension and flip of the practical argument—asserting than women can do the job just as well as a man. This extended practical argument is stated as, “There’s really no difference between men and women, so why retain antiquated gender roles?”
The observation that “women and men can both do the job” has become “because women and men can both do the job there is no difference between women and men.”
This obliteration of the biological realities has been translated into theology-speak by Catholic feminist Phyllis Zagano. In her book pushing for the ordination of women she argues for a “single nature anthropology.” The important thing about Jesus Christ, she maintains, is that he was a human being—his being a Jewish man is, at best irrelevant. Thus misinterpreting St Paul’s letter to the Galatians, she proposes that ontologically “in Christ there is no male or female.”
Modernist theologians always trim their sails according to the wind, and this opinion echoes the current “woke” ideologies that obliterate gender identities in favor of a neutered humanity. When those who argue for women’s ordination assert that there are no differences between men and women, their opinion harmonizes neatly with the zeitgeist.
An online search will state that there are seventy-two genders and an AI search tells us that there are “an infinite number of genders.” That some folks now assert quite innocently that “there is no difference between men and women” and that a Catholic theologian argues for “a single nature anthropology” shows how much the “woke” propaganda has infiltrated every level of our society.
Why is there such confusion over this basic question of human identity? It is the fruit of sixty years of the sexual revolution. We usually think of the sexual revolution as simply being a hedonistic revolt against traditional sexual morality, but we can now understand it as a revolt against human sexuality itself and, by extension, human identity.
The sexual revolution not only dispensed with traditional sexual morality. Through feminism and homosexualism it undermined both masculinity and femininity, and these forces, together with the new medical technologies of artificial contraception and easy abortion, brought about a profoundly new understanding not only of sexual behavior, but also of sexual identity and ultimately human identity itself.
To be a human being is to be male or female. Try as we might to re-imagine ourselves as neuter or one of seventy-two different genders, we cannot escape the fundamental gender binary. The different genders are not a new construct. They are all either a distortion or destruction of the original and essential male and female identities. You can no more invent a new gender than you can invent a new color.
The issue of women’s ordination, therefore, is one comparatively minor aspect of the much larger issue of our times: the destruction and distortion of human sexuality and ultimately the destruction and distortion of the human race itself.
What is the answer to this frightful future? Angry rants by conservative preachers will not suffice. Neither will reasoned arguments by philosophers or theologians. The answer to any distortion of reality is the positive action taken by sane, healthy, honest people.
Young men and women need to marry, stay married, have lots of children and show in their words and works the vibrant attractiveness of all that is simple, beautiful, good, and true. Then their pro-life and pro-family choice needs to be supported by their extended family, community, church, and society.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image, uploaded by Sebastián Picker, is “Divino Caos” (2019), painting by Sebastián Picker. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
“The issue of women’s ordination, therefore, is one comparatively minor aspect of the much larger issue of our times”
This statement cannot be any further from truth. The creeping-step-by-step strategy, similar to if not a purely a Marxist or Alinski plan, is at the root of how demonically destructive forces work their way into the fabric of society. Where is the line finally drawn? When they allow transgenders into the priesthood? When children are sacrificed on the altar in place of Christ in the Eucharist?
Sure, sure, call me extreme (hoping I will retract in fear of ridicule) or accuse me of imagining impossible scenarios. But only a decade ago, I would have been ridiculed in the same way if you had heard my prognostications of a post-modernist pope allowing a blessing of homosexual unions. (Yes, we know them by their fruits.)
Please tell me how our continuing to look at the bigger picture while ignoring the eating away at the fountain doesn’t lead to another dark ages. Why matters at all if we are unwilling to fight for the TRUE, GOOD, and BEAUTIFUL?
CT deceptively introduces his comment with only a partial quote from Father’s article. The whole quote is :
“The issue of women’s ordination, therefore, is one comparatively minor aspect of the much larger issue of our times: the destruction and distortion of human sexuality and ultimately the destruction and distortion of the human race itself.”
—so, CT ignores the essential and correct premise that Father proposes. I would recommend that he acquire and study the book “MAN AND WOMAN IN CHRIST – An Examination of the Roles of Men and Woman in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences” by Stephan B. Clark.
Fr. Longenecker,
Thank you for the insightful article. As a Reformed Protestant, I’m always tempted to reply on explicitly Catholic articles on TIC, but I don’t want to unnecessarily deep dive on centuries-long disagreements. Whenever I’ve interacted with Protestants considering the RCC, I’ve suggested the answer to bad Protestantism isn’t the RCC, but good, robust historically-grounded Reformed Protestantism. It’s not universal, but it seems like converts to the RCC tend to see Protestants as either backwoods, Biblicist fundamentalists or flakey, shallow, megachurch evangelicals. That being said, I’d contend the doctrine of sola scriptura is more robust and nuanced than it is typically portrayed. Moreover, the RCC’s own authority structure circles back to its own interpretation of various passages. That being said, we agree on the women pastors thing, and your tying it to overall anthropology is spot on. Thanks again!
Dear Guy, Thank you for your observations. I am aware of the full range of Protestant opinions from the fundamentalist to the flakey as you called them. But I’m also aware of the mainstream Protestant denominations. All three varieties, it seems to me, are far from “robust historically grounded Reformed Protestantism. Where is that exactly and what does it look like and how does it resolve what I call “The Protestant Problem”?
Fr. Longenecker,
I agree the mainline Protestants are very much off the rails. In short, in North America, I think of the legitimately Reformed traditions that subscribe to a historic confession. The PCA and OPC subscribe to the Westminster Confession (1648), Reformed Baptists subscribe to the 2nd London Baptist Confession (1689), and the Anglican Church in North America aims to return to its Reformed roots from the 16th century. Moreover, in recent decades, there has been a Protestant ressourcement that has sought to return not only to the ideas and works from 500 years ago, but from the entirety of the past 2,000; seeing the Reformation very much within the tradition of orthodox, biblical, apostolic Christianity dating from the 1st century. An example of the continuity being something like Calvin’s Institutes, in which he quotes from Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux more than anyone else. A good rule of thumb for orthodoxy (and ultimately unity) is the Nicaean creed (381), broad enough to include Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike.; the distinction being between nominal Christians who casually identify as Christians, verses truly regenerate/born-again believers who cling to Christ and his righteousness for salvation. The Reformed traditions very much have functional authority structures, which they would argue are closer to the New Testament prescription (with a level of mutual accountability). I would also imagine that the tension between the sectarian and the latitudinarian is not wholly unique to Protestantism.
One fact that has been conveniently disappeared from any conversation about the differences between men and women is the DNA difference found when researchers mapped the female genome. That difference is 1.5%. It is the same difference that exists between a man and a male chimpanzee.
You would think that the obvious differences in male and female biology would be enough to disprove the “no difference” allegation, but apparently they aren’t. So I suppose that even if the DNA difference were known and discussed, it would have little effect.
We are not living in an age of reason.
The idea that men and women should be considered equal is refuted by the reality that it is never the primary responsibility of the female to be the physical protector of the male.
Can circumstances bring exceptions to this reality? Yes, for example, a woman must provide physical protection to the male child when an adult male is not present. The same is true of the female providing protection to the physically or mentally impaired male. But, those are exceptions to the universal relationship between human males and human females.
The human male, by his nature, has a responsibility that the human female does not have.
Thank you Father Longenecker. Don’t know if you have read any of Carl Trueman’s writings on the anthropologic chaos being pressed into our society today. Keen insights.
I am always amused at how Galatians 3:28 is so often used, grossly out of context of course, to justify what is essentially a neutered humanity in every respect, attempting to erase all of the sacred differences that God has created in us. What a sad and utterly unbeautiful way to see God’s work of creation.
I have heard a number of explanations on this topic but the one explanation I have not heard in years, that is the most profound reason for the male only Priesthood, came from Bishop Fulton Sheen when he stated that the man provides the seed and the woman nurtures the seed. It is a matter of function not rights or ability or anything else. The Priest provides the seed being in the person of Christ and the Woman being One with her spouse the Holy Spirit nurtures that seed. And from that union we have the Eucharist. this is the only explanation needed. The women align themselves with the Virgin Mary as nurturing Mothers. The men align themselves with the Priest as Fathers and strong leaders of their families. But together they receive Jesus as children of God and become One with Him. Our belief in the Mass and the confection of the Eucharist is the only reason we need to explain why the Priest must be a man. Because He provides the seed and the Woman nurtures that seed. We should always refer back to Scripture and it’s proper understanding. All the other arguments are weak without this fundamental understanding of our function at Mass.