I am always grateful to Fr Paul Benfield for his ‘Window’ into the Church of England which he writes for the Ordinariate Portal. I hope he will not mind if I take some quotes from the June magazine where he write about the latest controversy over the ordination of women.

It is now over 30 years since the General Synod voted, by a two-thirds majority, to ordain women as well as men to the priesthood. This was not the first time that such a change to the practice of the C of E had been proposed, but it had always been rejected – but now it was going to happen. And so it did in 1994. Curiously, women were not to be ordained to the episcopate, and this did not happen until 2014, when there was government pressure and the threat of disestablishment.

The basis of the 1992 decision was clear: the ordination of women to the priesthood was provisional, and there would be a period of waiting upon the whole Church to see of this innovation would be accepted or not. Not, as it turned out. The Orthodox and the Catholics had already made clear their grave concerns – and the threat to hopes of reunion – before the Synod vote. If anything such opposition to the innovation has strengthened, with Pope John Paul’s declaration in 1994 ‘ I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.’ (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)

Now I want to turn to the address by the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (who holds the post of Bishop of Dover in the C of E) to a conference entitled ‘Not Equal Yet’ organised by the group ‘Women and the Church’ (WATCH). Fr Benfield quotes her as saying, ‘I do not believe for one moment that Rome, or the Orthodox, filled with the conviction of the Spirit on any important matter such as this, would say: “We can’t do this unless the Anglicans or the Orthodox are doing it” … Yet as a member of the Ordinariate I know that this is precisely what Pope Benedict did: he felt able to waive the celibacy rule in order that former Anglican clergy could be ordained to the Catholic priesthood – but not to the episcopate. Why? Because the Catholic Church is one with the Orthodox in not ordaining married men as Bishops.

I have become ever more conscious in the last ten years of the tremendous reforms brought about in the Catholic Church as a result of the Second Vatican Council. The concerns of the Protestant Reformers were faced up to – and understood and answered – in a way that the Council of Trent had been unable to do. At the same time I believe that a significant number of Protestants have turned their back on the calls for unity, and resurrected (hardly the best word, I admit) the stale controversies of the 16th century.

We were clear in 1992 that the General Synod had voted for a provisional ordination to the priesthood of the C of E of women. Now, of course, this was an uncomfortable position to be in. Psychologically, it was difficult for women candidates coming forward, to accept that their ordination might be temporary. Indeed, one of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches was the reverse its decision. And what exactly was this priesthood to which women were now to be ordained? The Evangelicals were clear that it was in no way similar to the understanding held by Roman Catholics. In 1980 Synod has been persuaded to add the word ‘Presbyters’ in the title of the Ordination Service of the ‘Alternative Service Book’. The Anglican-in-the-Street (and there were still some around in 1992) had for a long time believed that ‘priests’ were ‘Catholic’ – the C of E had ‘vicars’!

Very soon, the re-witing of history began. The ‘period of reception’ was now to be seen as a time when the supporters of male ordination either changed their minds, or left. Considerable energy was expended on this project. In the Diocese of Southwark where I was an incumbent for four years, more and more posts at Diocesan level were filled by women clergy, the teaching role of the parish clergy was systematically undermined, the Bishop made clear his displeasure at all who refused his line, saying that if he had realised that the provisions would bar him from celebrating the Eucharist in some of ‘his’ parishes, he would not have voted for them. Fr Geoffrey Kirk was brave enough to say publicly that if the bishop had not understood what he was voting for then that, perhaps, told us more about him than the provisions. In a conversation with a young (male) cleric, whom I had met only a few years previously as a hard-line fundamentalist Pentecostal, I mentioned the ‘provisional’ nature of the new ordinations, only to receive an angry denial that this was in fact the case. Yet, to quote the Rt Revd Rose, my parish was ‘financially support(ing) theological colleges that teach the exact opposite.’

After thirty years the period of reception might well be drawing to a close, for it is clear that the worldwide Church has not accepted the innovation. (I refer, of course, to the Catholic and Orthodox Communions, and not to Protestant denominations who do not call their ministers ‘priests’ and do not believe them to be such. The ‘conflicted General Synod’ should certainly cease to be a battle ground, and changes need to be made , though not overnight. A first step might be to stop ordaining as priests each year those who are unable to accept the decision of the whole Church, East and West. Yes, indeed, the C of E needs to find ‘ a generous way to bring the 2014 arrangements to an end’ – to quote the Chair of WATCH – but this will not be done by re-writing history.

What on earth would we say if the political party which won this year’s election under the rules of our British democracy, then tried to dismantle those very rules – even pretending that they really meant something else – by barring those of a contrary opinion?

Of course, there is another solution, and one which would undoubtedly please those who are increasingly influential in the C of E, in terms of size of congregations, organisation and money. It occurred to me after the remark of a friend that the term ‘priest’ is now rarely heard in the C of E except in reference to ‘women priests’ – itself a term which many women find disagreeable. The solution to this impossible mess would be that the C of E declare that it does not hold the same understanding of priests and bishops as that held by the Catholics and Orthodox. Rather, its ministry is that of vicars who pastor parishes and they in turn are overseen in groupings of parishes by a presiding minister. In turn this would obviate the need for two ordinations (often just a year apart) which is objected to by a growing number of young clergy. A radical solution, but a logical one, I think.