The Common Philosophy of the Women's Ordination & Homosexual Agendas

Women's Ordination and Homosexualism

Some question whether the feminist agenda and the homosexualist agenda are necessarily linked. I don't suggest that they are linked necessarily. That is to say, one could, in good conscience support women's ordination and reject homosexualism.

However, in practice, and in underlying philosophy they are most certainly linked. This is because both pressure groups operate with a belief system that religion is relative not revealed. In other words, the Christian religion is something that can (and should) be changed according to the culture in which it finds itself. This cultural relativism is compounded by another 'ism' which is historicism--that is the belief that our culture is superior to those that went before simply because it has come later. This is supported by progressivism which assumes that we are getting better and better as time goes on.

Consequently both feminists and homosexualists will use the same arguments for their case which are basically, "We know more now about human sexuality and gender roles than they did in the past. In the past women and homosexuals were persecuted and put down. Now we know that they shouldn't have been and we don't want that to happen any more so therefore all forms of unfairness should end, therefore women should be allowed to be priests and so should homosexuals and homosexuals should be able to marry each other too."

In addition to this fundamental philosophical congeniality the relativistic arguments for women's ordination are three-fold and can be applied equally and just as logically to the homosexualist cause. The first form of argument is sentimental: "Sally would make such a good priest or bishop. It's so unfair that she should be excluded since she is such a wonderful person." The second is utilitarian. "Sally would make a darned good priest. She is such a great preacher, so pastorally sensitive and such a smart, educated person and top form administrator. We need people like her. Be sensible and let her be ordained." The third is political: "This is a human rights issue. Sally demands equality. Christians should give her equality and not discriminate. It's simple. Get on with it or else..."

The same three forms of argument can be (and are) used for the homosexualist cause. "Jimmy and George are such nice guys. Who are we to say they shouldn't marry?" or "Jimmy is such a fantastic listener and such a great preacher and such a fun guy. He's be a great priest. Who cares if he's gay?" or "This is an issue of human rights. Simple. Don't discriminate against homosexuals."

Please don't misunderstand. I am not saying that these forms of argument are inadmissible or wrong. I'm simply saying that they cannot be the only forms of argument or else anything goes. It has always been the Christian tradition to appeal not only to human reason, sentiment, utilitarian and cultural arguments, but also to appeal to the Sacred Scriptures as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church down through the ages.

In other words we appeal first to the revealed religion and the cultural arguments, while strong, can never contradict or cause us to go against the revealed religion as received by the Church down through the ages. This is not to cling to tradition as being totally immutable and inflexible, but it is to say that any changes that the Holy Spirit brings about must be in keeping with the whole tradition and be seen to be a valid development of that tradition and never a contradiction of it.
Posted by Fr Longenecker