|
|---|
|
Being the Report of a Commission appointed by
the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York
Published by the Church Information
Office, London. Dec. 1966
1 At its Autumn Session 1962, the Church Assembly debated the document Gender and Ministry, a report prepared by a working-party of CACTM in the light of its new responsibility ' to examine the question of the recruitment and the use of women for full-time service in the Church, and advise the Bishops and the Church Assembly with the least possible delay '.
2 At one point in its argument, the report records this opinion: ‘ We think that the various reasons for this withholding of the ordained and representative priesthood from women, reasons theological, traditional, instinctive, anthropological, social, emotional, should be much more thoroughly examined.’ The point was taken up in the debate in the Assembly, notably by the Dean of Westminster, who in his speech stated that the group which had prepared the report nowhere proposed that women should be ordained to the priesthood, but equally was not prepared to state categorically that never in the future history of Christendom as a whole could women enter upon Holy Orders. The working-party, therefore, re-iterated the request which had come from the meeting of the World Council of Churches at Delhi that the question of withholding the priesthood from women should be radically re-examined.
3 The matter was incorporated in a resolution moved by the Provost of Southwell at the end of the debate in the following terms:
‘ That CACTM and CWMC be asked to appoint a Committee to make a thorough examination of the various reasons, “ theological, traditional, instinctive, anthropological, social and emotional ”, for “ the withholding of the ordained and representative priesthood from women ”, and to report to the Assembly.’
The resolution was amended and passed in the following terms:
‘ That the Archbishops be asked to appoint a Committee to make a thorough examination of the various reasons for the withholding of the ordained and representative priesthood from women.’
4 It was in response to this resolution that our Commission was set up by their Graces the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. The terms of reference granted to us were, however, in a shorter and more positive form than the Resolution of Church Assembly. We were asked ‘ to examine the question of Women and Holy Orders’. Our concern has, therefore, been with the question whether women ought to be or can be ordained to the priesthood, rather than with the wider issues of any other form of ordained ministry to which women might be admitted. Furthermore, our responsibility has been to examine and present the facts and arguments, and we have not been called upon to advise the Church on what it ought to do in the future. We trust that our work will provide material for the continued examination and discussion which must take place before any changes, should they be found necessary, could gain general acceptance.
5 We have given careful thought to the kind of report which will prove most useful. We recognise on the one hand the need for a clear and straightforward statement of the issues as we see them to be, so that the areas of agreement and disagreement may be clearly seen and evaluated by all. On the other hand our studies have led us to realise that many of the points at issue are far from simple, and need highly technical examination if they are to be expounded satisfactorily. In order, therefore, to avoid the criticism of superficiality from one quarter and obscurity from another, we have decided to set out in the Report the issues as succinctly as possible, so that they are there for all to see, and to attach as an appendix to the Report a number of papers in which the issues with which we have been dealing are argued in greater detail by those who, by the nature of their training and experience, are qualified to express an opinion. It will be noted that we have included a section in our Report on the Biblical and Historical Evidence, but no accompanying Essay. Our reason is that much work has been done on this aspect of the problem in the past and there is nothing fresh to add at the present time. We therefore confine our observations to the summing up contained in the Report itself.
6 This method has a further advantage. Had the Commission been called upon to advise whether women should be ordained to the priesthood or not, its members would have found themselves divided, and they would have had to present majority and minority reports or at least statements of reservation on particular points. But this was not, in fact, the Commission’s task. We are able, therefore, to present a unanimous Report in which we set out the principal matters of fact and interpretation as we see them; to this we append papers in which members of the Commission state positions which they themselves hold. Thus we have been able, we hope, to avoid the obscurity and ambiguity which might have come from an attempt to conflate and harmonise different views.
7 From the first we were anxious to give as full an opportunity as possible to any who would like to put their views before us, and we indicated in the church press our willingness to consider written and oral evidence. We also approached individuals who we believed might have a valuable contribution to make. We should like to express our gratitude to those whose names are set out in Appendix 1 who responded to our request. We should particularly wish to thank the Anglican Group for the Ordination of Women to the Historic Ministry of the Church for the important memorandum which they submitted for our guidance, and for the opportunity given us to discuss some of its implications with members of the Group.
8 We appreciate that it might have been expected of us that we should make some assessment of the strength of opinion within the Church of England on the subject of the ordination of women to the priesthood, since clearly a strong desire for or against would be a relevant factor. Such an assessment we have been unable to undertake. Early in our discussion we sought the advice of professional sociologists who are trained in the techniques of sociological and statistical analysis. They convinced us that to produce figures to indicate the mind of the Church which would stand up to scientific test would involve a lengthy, complicated and costly process, which would have been far beyond our means or capacity.
9 We are, therefore, unable to express any opinion whether the Church as a whole wants or does not want women in priests’ orders. But we have been made aware of the argument that the lack of obvious enthusiasm for the ordination of women may well be due to the fact that until recently such ordination was not considered within the realm of practical possibility. Finally, we can record that in the course of our discussions we have at no time felt ourselves to be subject to overwhelming pressure one way or the other.
10 Canon N. M. Kennaby was Secretary to the Commission from 1963 till his appointment to the Deanery of St Albans. The Reverend M. J. Nott was Secretary from 1964 to 1965, when he was appointed Archdeacon of Maidstone. Miss Gertrude Cowan was Secretary during the closing months of our work and undertook the laborious task of preparing our Report. To them and their secretaries, Miss Doris Allan, Miss Lucinda Ridsdale, Mrs Jean Henderson and Miss Jane Monro, the Commission offers its sincere gratitude.
 |
Please, support us financially if you can do
so! |
 |
|
|
|---|
 |
Why not join ‘CIRCLES’?Women’s Ongoing Internet Consultation |
|
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!
