Without getting into the whole discussion of homosexual by nature, I know of several men who had previously engaged in homosexual acts who had exited the lifestyle. In these cases the entry into the homosexual lifestyle, was from social pressure. This is where the witness of the Church is most important. Had these men been grounded at the time in the teaching of the Church, my guess is they would have never entered the homosexual lifestyle in the first place.

It is people like these men discussed above which bother the activist homosexual community. They want to say that all there are there by nature. This is clearly false. There are at least some in that community who are there because of social pressure. In some case that social pressure is social escape, but social pressure all the same. It is a lie to say that there is no choice in being homosexual. For at least some there is a choice, and for many who made the choice there is repentance and the chance to lead lives according to the requirements of Holy Scripture.

The political and religious liberals, want to quiet the voice of the former homosexual. This is done by attacking the motives of the speaker. That one in the past engaged in some behavior does not silence their right to speak on the topic.

This whole idea that upholding the teaching of Holy Scripture is the repression of one’s natural inclination is totally bogus. It may be true sometimes, but it not universally applicable. It is not even universally applicable with those who have left the homosexual lifestyle.

I know that there are many liberals both political and religious who will always portray anyone who speaks against the homosexual acts as repressed homosexual. It is a cheap political trick but it does to a degree work. I wrote a blog piece Homosexuality and Reason. As I should have expected the claims of being a repressed homosexual were quickly made. I with this am doing my part to resist political hacks.

Nevertheless, there are good and shall I say secular reasons that homosexuality is a social problem. I here present a short summary of my thinking on how homosexuality defeats comradeship. I with this suggest that comradeship be a very necessary social function.  This is one reason the homosexuality is not good for the social structure, there are others.

There are sometimes when the sexes are to be separated. To me this is proper when comradeship is a required element. I know of nothing that can hurt a unit’s view of its common purpose than sexual attraction. The most clear examples are things like combat units in the armed forces.

As I am using the term, comradeship is a close personal attachment without sexual desires. This can be with an individual or a group.  While I am not saying that comradeship with a person of the opposite sex cannot occur, I am saying that sexual attraction destroys comradeship. Large group comradeship of mixed sexes is very difficult if not impossible.

Homosexual attraction also destroys comradeship. If I am part of a group of all men, I feel more open to comradeship, and I think that this is true of most men. This is where a even homosexual proclivity becomes a problem I need to be sure that my comradeship is not viewed as sexual attraction or a sexual advance. When I go on a men’s retreat, I do so in large part for comradeship. Homosexual attraction being part of the group destroys comradeship. This idea can be generalized and should be.

If I am part of a larger group of comrades, I want to think that the decisions of all in the group are made devoid of sexual attraction. It is not my original idea, but I contend that in any group of people where leaders or members of the group are required to make decision which effect the group in less than two seconds, need comradeship and must not have sexual attraction. This is why mixed sexes and homosexuals should not be in things like combat units.

I close with the reminder that homosexual acts are sin.  Holy Scripture tells us this, so the above is additive.   Even if the reader feels the logic of this posting is wrong, it does not change the sinful nature of homosexual acts.

I write this post because the topic has come up on the email group I am a member as well as posting by Brad Drell on his blog.

The idea that the government could not establish a Church is not saying that religion has no place in government. It is a job for religion to maintain moral order, and in that respect it overlaps with the role of government. Let us all be honest, government is all about morals. Morals are what make laws acceptable to people. There is no such thing as a government that does not have morals. They may be what I would call bad morals, but they have their moral none the less.

What we have in today’s separation of Church and State movement is a set of morals that are based upon Secular Humanism. While not necessarily having a notion of a god, secular humanism is basically a religion. In the same respect as most atheists are religious.

In the case of the San Diego Cross we have a few people whom the cross offends and want it removed. The cross is not only the symbol of our risen Savior but is also a symbol of our common heritage. In the case of the San Diego Cross it is also a piece of what should be considered public artwork. In many respects that cross is no different from the artwork that is part of many of public works in the United States. I do not like some of that artwork, but I am not about to go to court to have it removed.

Now we have a number of judges in the United States who want to substitute their own morals for the common morals of the people. In most case the morals they want to impose are the morals of secular humanist. They often frame it in the idea of the separation of Church and State, as if this were something which was without religion. Separation of Church and State is an idea which goes back to the early day of the United States, but it is not part of the Constitution. Nevertheless, today it is acceptable for judges to use one religion, Secular Humanism, to suppress the cultural expression of another group of people, who are Christian.

Why this discussion on an Anglican Christian’s blog. There is a most discouraging post by the Dean of the Cathedral of the Diocese of San Diego (ECUSA). In that piece he suggests that the cross be removed and put on a Christian College campus. This is victory for those who hate Christianity.

Crosses like those in San Diego are a reflection of culture. San Diego like much of the southwestern United States can be viewed as a Roman Catholic town. There is no question that the Roman Catholic Church is very much as part of the history and culture of San Diego. Why should people have to suppress their culture just because that culture is based in the Christian religion? Why would a leader of ECUSA want to run up a white flag and surrender to the forces of a small group of people whose goal is to stop the expression of Christianity and Christian culture in the marketplace of idea? Dean you have some explaining to do in my mind.

First as a scientist I would say that most that can be said is some certain groups of genes are correlated to being homosexual. This is not the same as saying that they cause homosexual attraction. I get sick of people willfully confusing correlation with cause and effect.

The strongest anti-hypothesis which can be stated being consistence with the data is that certain genetic makeup provides a proclivity for homosexual attraction. To say more is to ignore the identical twin studies. This should end the discussion about being born gay and having no choice. A person is no more born gay than they are born an alcoholic. As a free moral agents people make choices.

We are born sinners and each has their own set of sins which are particular problems to them. The proclivity to some particular sin may be from our genes or it may be from the environment. This proclivity does not matter. We are called to avoid sin, when we do sin we are called to repent and to avoid that sin.

How then does this relate to the idea of woman clergy. One must first discuss what is the meaning of clergy. Some define clergy as someone who has a formal ministry within the Church. usually in preaching, or teaching. This view of clergy is held by most of the Protestant denomination. This is clearly not the Catholic view of Holy Orders as understood by the Eastern Church, the Roman Church and the Anglo-Catholics.

I think it wrong to equate the terms Holy Orders and clergy. Men in Holy Orders are clearly clergy. In modern times the common understanding of clergy has included nuns and monks not in Holy Orders. I would suggest, that one can find support for the definition of clergy as a formal minister in the Church, in the writing of the early Church.

With this as the definition of clergy, I find no scriptural warrant to exclude woman from the office so defined. It is clear that Saint Paul had the Deaconess Phebe. It is very clear that Phebe had a very important role in the Church (Rom:16) This role was one which was important enough that St Paul called for all of the Church in Rome to lend her assistance in whatsoever business she hath need of you. It is clear that she had a mission and Saint Paul granted his authority to complete that mission.

I contend the title of clergy does not convey with it a sense of Spiritual Authority. It describes someone with a formal Church office. It does and should convey the sense of education, training, or experience which are helpful in the ministry. It does convey a sense of organizational authority. It may also convey a reality of secular authority such as being the CEO of the local church, but usually not Spiritual Authority. The term clergy does not necessarily mean a man with sacerdotal duty. Spiritual Authority is implied with the term Holy Orders.

My study suggests, it is the sacerdotal concept that makes a distinction as to whether or not woman can hold all offices. In sacerdotal churches, men in Holy Orders are given and expected to use authority. In the sacrament of Penance the Priest is to forgive sin as Christ has so provided.(Jn:20:21) It is not my intent to get into Spiritual Authority and the office of priest so I leave this one example.

In sacerdotal churches, the sacraments are not only a sign or symbol. The sacraments actually conveys the grace for which it is a sign. Baptism and Penances actually convey the forgiveness of sins. The Holy Eucharist is the actual feeding upon Christ. Matrimony enables married Christians to fulfill the duties of family life. Unction confers upon the sick and dying graces as may be best for their condition, which may in many case include actual healing. The sacraments have their root in the New Testaments and were developed by the early church.

The ministerial priesthood, a term used to distinguish it from the priesthood of all believer, is a representative of the whole body of Christ. The Priest does not represent himself or the local congregation, he represents the whole Body of Christ, the Church. As such no one is ordained because a group of people like his teaching or personality, he is ordained by the Bishop acting for the whole Church.

The Bishop is a man who has been delegated by the Church to hold the authority of his office. He hold this authority by virtue of been from an unbroken line of man so authorized, each having been given authority from other Bishops. This authority goes back to Christ giving authority to his Apostles (Jn20:21) and the Apostles delegating their authority to others. (Acts:1:26)

The ministerial priesthood is an assistance to the Priesthood of All Believers. The priest perform a very specific and necessary function. Just like the hand can not see, the various members of the Church each have their function. This is a New Testament concept express by Saint Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. (1Cor:12:)

Christ only chose men to be Apostles. This not withstanding the facts that it can be inferred that a sizeable portion and possibly majority of those who followed him in his lifetime were women. It is presented by those who want to ignore this fact, that this was only a matter of then social convention. This is a bogus argument. To accept this argument, you must ignore the fact that Christ was God. You must also ignore that Christ made major upsets to the social convention of the time. It can logically be inferred that social convention not upset by Christ are acceptable to God. (Please note here I said acceptable to God, not necessarily God’s will)

On the other hand, there are references to women in the New Testament, and some which clearly show women in ministry (Mt:27:55:) and leading payer (Acts:1:14:) On the other hand scripture (1Tm:2:12) clear talks about women not having authority over men. How far does this go. It clearly does not universally apply to civil authority for there were women in the Old Testament who held the authority of Judges. (Judg:4:4). (Esth:9:29)

This then all seems to focus on spiritual authority. What then is spiritual authority? Authority is found is in Scripture, when Saint Paul says that all should be under authority (Rom 13:1). Rejection of authority and it consequences is also found in Scripture in the fall of Satan (Isa:14:12:). All authority comes from God (Rom 13:1)

Spiritual authority on earth was given to Christ. Christ delegated this authority to the Apostles who delegated it to the Church.(Mt:16:18). One of the delegations of authority by the Church is the delegation to its clergy. Back almost as far as New Testament times the Church has viewed the priest so authorized as being a form of the Old Testament Priesthood.. That is man who is authorized to perform the various sacramental acts on behalf of the whole Church.

The Old Testament required that the Priest be male, Christ did nothing to cause this to change, and this has been the practice of the Church back into New Testament times. Therefore, the Church has no authority to allow women to be priests. The changes in the culture do not negate this.

Our present day is not the first time which people have made claims that women should be allowed to be priests. There was a movement which feigned to ordain women as priests during the time of the Ecumenical Councils, and this was summarily rejected by the undivided Church.

This priesthood is a function of the Church which has since the time of Christ only been performed by men. As such the burden of claiming this is a valid ministry for women falls upon those who desire to change. In some parts of the Church, it is alleged that this has been done. In fact, what has been done is a political process for a very small part of the Church. Because, ministerial Priest acts on behalf of the whole Church no province has the authority to make such changes.

How does this relate to women in the Church leadership. It is clear that the assorted denominations have very diverse views on the subject. Some Churches take the position, that no leadership role exists for women, even in secular things. As mentioned before, this position is not consistent with the whole of Scripture. (Judg:4:4) ( Esth:9:29) Others ignore the teaching of Saint Paul and the Tradition of the Church, and make a claim that women can hold any office in the Church. If the offices of those denominations do not have a sacerdotal function, then on the surface this is not in conflict with Scripture. My problem is not with women being able to hold any office within that denomination, it is their lack of a ministerial Priesthood.

In summary, the definition of the office is what makes women holding that office acceptable or not. It is clear from Scripture and the Tradition of the Church that women are not to hold the office of Priest.

Within the Anglican movement there are groups which appear to be Orthodox, with the exception of the Ordination of Women. However, when I look at these groups it is not the issue of the ordination of women which separates us. It is the understanding of the meaning of priesthood. Within the Anglican movement, there has been great differences in Ecclesiastical understanding of many topics. We have the Anglo-Catholic understanding and we have the understanding which can best be described as Calvinistic.

In the study of the history of the Book of Common Prayer you will find the influences of these two different groups. The most obvious single point is in the words used while administering the elements during Communion. The first part is the Catholic part; “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life”. This reflect the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The second part is the Puritan part “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.” This reflects the fact that it was the death of Christ which gives salvation, not the celebration of the Eucharist. These statement are a good example of conflicting truths, both are true, yet if taken to their logical extreme, or even taken out of context, they would appear to be conflicting.

While, I tend to prefer simple services, which at times brands me as “Low Church”, I am an Anglo-Catholic. I went to a seminary which was Catholic in its understanding of the Mass and the Sacraments. I fully believe that there is real grace given in the administration of the Sacraments. But I also realize that there are people of Faith who do not hold these views.

At my ordination, I was required to state that I believe that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for Salvation. I realize that if one limits their view to Holy Scripture, one could fail to find the necessity of the Priestly office. To fully see this you need to look to the writing of the Church Fathers. Therefore, I must accept that those who do not share my understanding of the Church are still Christians and if they use the same form of Worship, they can be viewed as Anglicans.

I, as an Anglo-Catholic, must support those “low church people” in their fight to maintain the Biblical Faith. Does this mean I should be in “communion” with them. Of course formal recognition of formally being in communion is a function of the office of Bishop, but I would suggest the answer is mixed. Assuming that the Celebrant has valid Holy Orders, the Mass is valid. I would therefore, not view it as improper to receive communion when attending one of their services.

I would share in all sorts of non-worship ministerial and pastoral duties, just as I would with a Lutheran or a Baptist. But what is know as Full Communion, may not be possible, because their understanding of core theological issues are substantially different. One of these issues is the issue of women in Holy Orders. They may have tactical Apostolic Succession, but they do not hold to the same understanding of Holy Orders.

I would suggest that the differences with some groups which ordain women as priests have more to do with the understanding of Holy Orders than women in specific offices. It is their lack of a sacerdotal ministerial priesthood which is the larger stumbling block. Without the sacerdotal ministerial priesthood, the understanding of the Holy Eucharist is very different. The Holy Eucharist is the primary worship of God, which is our primary duty.