I know there are Christian Churches that ordain women. At this time, the most I can say about them is that they represent a fundamental change in thinking. However, I believe female ordination as strategy is based on a dangerous misunderstanding of the reality behind male hierarchies.
Female Ordination is a Vanity Project
Unfortunately, gender inequality is pervasive all over the world. It is merely echoed in the Christian creation story. Therefore, as a church-by-church strategy it will never be anything more than a vanity project.
I know women who are devoted to their church. Many of them would say they consider their church to be their own, that the church belongs to them as much as it does to the male hierarchy. Although many of them recognize the injustices, they don’t support female ordination.
Because the world’s gender inequality is merely echoed in the Christian creation story, as a strategy female ordination can only be superficial.
A Misguided Confrontation
Nevertheless, we suddenly have this agenda, which is not even held by all women, threatening to turn the conversation into a confrontation. In my opinion, it would make more sense to talk about why the problem exists in the Church in the first place. For example, no one asks why gender inequality contradicts the general thrust of the new Testament.
The Real Question is Whether Women are Capable of Participating in This Conversation
At this time we’re talking to a specific person—Pope Francis. We don’t know yet what his vision is and so we’re exploring the possibilities—given reality as we know it. But we do know that he has come down on the side of progressives. This is a gift. What will we do with it?
I’m not saying that we have to accept everything that the Church tells us, but there is reason to hope that the Church can address our political and economic problems. Francis’s entry into the conversation requires a decision on our part.
Complicating Factors
Women rarely agree with one another. In my experience, their loyalties are to their families, religion, children, political party, their immediate social circle, and perhaps their sports team. Notice that allegiance to women outside of their social circle is not included in this list. Still, the loyalties of women are a priceless tendency when it comes to community building.
Unfortunately, female relationships in the wider community, while they have good points, represent a shaky foundation for community building. There is always potential for rivalry and disagreement. If you also consider the influence of Washington’s elite feminists, you will see that the disharmony is complete.
The Feminist Agenda Ignores the Importance of the Maternal Family
There is one specific kind of loyalty that has the potential to correct the world’s social ills, and that is loyalty to the maternal family. But Washington feminism knows nothing about this. That’s because it belongs to Washington. Furthermore, notwithstanding a few female stars, Washington belongs to the masculine hierarchy. I believe we can build on this principle.
I Propose That There is Only One Non-Negotiable Principle
If we find that our attempts to remedy these factors meet resistance from the Church, we would be justified in reconsidering our participation in the conversation. But assuming we are able to agree on this principle, discovering the factors that work against strong maternal bonds would be the next step.
Some Factors that Work Against Strong Maternal Bonds
I’ll list two factors the work against strong maternal bonds. One is the tendency of family courts to take children from their mothers in the case of divorce. Another is the policy of turning single girls who become pregnant into pariahs. This leads directly to the loss of social support and often to the loss of their children.
Throughout history, the legal system gave these policies teeth. This led to the incarceration of so many young women in Ireland’s Magdalene laundries. However, this isn’t unique to the Catholic Church. The Poor Laws were in effect in England during the reign of Queen Victoria, resulting in the phenomenon of ‘baby farming’.
Baby Farming
For more than a hundred years, single women in England who became pregnant were systematically deprived of the support of their families. Because a girl’s family members would share in her punishment unless they disowned her, she and her baby were alone.
Employment opportunities for single mothers were limited, pay was low, and there was no one to care for a new baby while its mother worked. Enter the diabolical institution of the baby farm. Single mothers would pay other people to house and feed their babies, not realizing that the children would be systematically starved. Meanwhile, the mother provided the baby farmer with a tidy sum.
John Wesley
It’s damning that Victoria and her consort Albert, the real power behind the throne, failed to address this travesty for so long. However, the poor laws actually went into effect before Victoria became queen. It’s been argued that the responsible party was the Methodist, John Wesley.
If there is any validity behind my theory of the central importance to society of the maternal bond, we would have to conclude that these kinds of policies destroy the very thing they claim to protect—the community.
The Maternal Bond is Square One
That said, we seem to be back where we started, trying to convince our all-powerful leaders to change their policies. The important place to begin is our ability to interpret policies in terms of the danger they pose to our community. This would depend on our ability to agree among ourselves. This implies that we have to be able to define what defines the good of the community. I’ve argued here that the maternal bond should take precedence over legalistic or ideological priorities. In other words, the maternal bond must take precedence over appearances.