Good point from a reader: “Something the [NY Times] article doesn’t touch
on is how when conservatives/traditionalist compromise, their position is
later outlawed. In 1973 (approx), when the first female priests were
consecrated, there was an agreement that you didn’t have to believe one way
or the other about it, just let the other guy believe what he wants. …
Come 1995 or 1996, the house of bishops/general convention made it against
canon law for someone who did not believe that women should be ordained
could be elected to any position in the church, or, I think, ordained. I
know that parishes are ignoring this, since I know folks like this who are
new priests, vestry, etc.
“So, it’s not optional what to believe about women’s ordination, but it is
to disbelieve in the trinity (1960’s), or the divinity of Jesus (Bp.
I agree, that’s the way it’s going. Divinity of Christ?—Some say yes,
some say no. Trinity?—Make up your own mind. The Resurrection?—(Yawn)
Whatever. Nicene Creed—Take it or leave it, just as you like. Homosex a
“sacrament”?—Believe, or leave!