Why I will not ordain a woman/until General Convention authorizes me

by The Right Reverend Ned Cole, Bishop of Central New York (see biography)

from The Ordination of Women: Pro and Con, pp. 70-80,
Edited by Michael P.Hamilton and Nancy S.Montgomery, Morehouse Barlow Co, 1975.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.

I am for the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopacy, but I will not ordain a woman to the priesthood until the General Convention 1976 authorizes me to do so. I can only say why I will not do this after sharing what I have said about the ordination of women and what I have done with my own deacon, who was involved in the service at the Church of the Advocate in Philadelphia, July 29, 1974.

We eight bishops(1) of the “Philadelphia Eleven” find ourselves in unique, but quite unenviable positions. We believe deeply that there is no theological reason why women should not be ordained as priests or bishops. At the same time we believe equally in the corporate concept of the church. We find these two beliefs on the issue of ordination of women in sharp conflict. We cannot act on one without violating the other. My brother bishops and eleven sisters acted in Philadelphia on the first belief; we eight bishops have been acting on the latter. Our reasons for so acting, or “not acting” as some would say, vary, so what I am about to set before you are my own reasons. We eight have kept in close contact since Philadelphia. We spent much time together in Chicago and in Mexico at the meetings of the House of Bishops. Some of my actions have come about as a result of our conversations and communications. They have also come with consultation with my chancellor, the Honorable Hugh R. Jones, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Central New York and my Commission on Ministry. They have also come from my understanding of church history, theology, eleven years in the episcopacy and a belief God is working in contemporary history through his Holy Spirit.

It seems best to begin by reviewing my relationship with Betty Bone Schiess, who, in 1968, began discussions with me about entering seminary and studying for Holy Orders and who notified me in mid-July, 1974 that she planned on presenting herself for ordination to the priesthood in Philadelphia on July 29th. In this review you will see what I have said and done about the ordination of women and why I will not ordain a woman to the priesthood or complete whatever happened on July 29 until General Convention 1976 authorizes me to do so.

Betty and William Schiess and their family became known to me soon after I was consecrated Bishop Coadjutor in Central New York. One evening, when my wife and I were dinner guests in their home, they asked how they could get more involved in the life of the church, because the parish of which they were then members tended not to be active in social causes. I suggested they transfer to a parish that was and to try it for a year. They did. They did not return to the former parish. I came to respect Betty and her concerns; Bill and his concerns. Our families were together socially on several occasions and Bill, a doctor, regularly reads my electrocardiogram.

In 1968, on the eve of my becoming diocesan, Betty spoke to me about entering seminary. Colgate Rochester/Bexley Hall/Crozer was nearby in Rochester, New York and encouraged her to see if a study schedule could be worked out there so she would not have to be uprooted from her family and the Syracuse community in which she was deeply involved, in many worthwhile causes. I wrote her “it would be good for me to have a letter from the Rector and Vestry of Grace Church (Syracuse, New York, where they now belonged) recommending your proposal. I also feel that we might do some of the things which are required for postulants in order that, if and when the time comes for ordination of women, some of these things will have been done." This was in reply to a letter from her which said in part, “I am fully aware that women cannot now be ordained and have a suspicion that that will not be possible in my lifetime. However, if and when that time comes, I want to be ready."

The rector, wardens and vestry of Grace Church approved of Betty attending Bexley Hall and working toward a degree of Bachelor of Divinity and she entered the seminary in September 1968. She did very well there and in her clinical training. We had some correspondence on postulancy. In October 1969, after consultation with my chancellor and the Standing Committee, I wrote her quoting the chancellor's opinion: “the Canon (then Canon 26) contemplates and thus presently requires that the postulant be a male person.”

The General Convention in Houston in 1970, through its new Canon 50, allowed me to act on her candidacy so, early in 1971, I wrote her and the then Dean of Bexley Hall (the Rt. Rev. Daniel Corrigan) that, as of January 1, 1971, Betty Bone Schiess was officially recorded as a candidate for ordination to the diaconate. She graduated with honor from seminary in 1972, did exceptionally well on the General Ordination Examination and was recommended to me for ordination by the Commission on Ministry and the Standing Committee of the Diocese. The commission's report stated approval “with the understanding that Ordination to the Priesthood would hinge upon revision of the present canons.” She was ordained deacon on June 25, 1972 at St. Paul's Cathedral, Syracuse. She was the only person I have ordained deacon or priest in my eleven years as bishop who did not use the book when I asked her the questions before ordination. She knew them by heart! She joined the staff of Grace Church, Baldwinsville (a village just northwest of Syracuse) as a curate on a part-time basis and began work August 1. She received a citation as a 1972 Woman of Achievement by the Syracuse Post-Standard.

When the House of Deputies at Louisville in 1973 voted against the ordination of women, Betty severed her relationship with Grace Church, Baldwinsville “to direct her energies toward areas of concern which are other than the parochial ministry” according to the letter sent to the parish. I was notified of this through copies of letters sent to me. Later Betty became the Administrator of MECCA, a Senior Citizens program in a downtown-Syracuse Baptist Church.

In the spring of 1974, at the time we in the diocese began to process candidates and deacons for ordination, the Commission on Ministry, the Standing Committee and I made no attempt to pass on the readiness of Betty Bone Schiess for ordination to the priesthood. Because of past statements we had made that she would not be considered until the canons were changed, we felt we were not able to consider her. Early in the summer of 1974 letters from Betty to the Standing Committee and to the chairperson of the Commission on Ministry were received.(2)

It was not until July 16 when Betty came to see me and inform me that some retired or resigned bishops had agreed to ordain to the priesthood some female deacons, and that she was one of them, that the letters mentioned above made sense. She had had plans for ordination; The Standing Committee, the Commission on Ministry and I did not. I attempted to dissuade her and pointed out that as a bishop I could ordain people only after they had been recommended to me by the Standing Committee and that a deacon must be ordained by the bishop of the diocese unless he asks another bishop to act for him. I also pointed out that no resigned or retired bishop had a canonical body to recommend any person to him for ordination. The entire corporate body of the church - clergy and laity, represented by the Standing Committee - would be bypassed. I also pointed out what discipline I would take if she went through with her plans.

The names of the bishops who had offered to ordain these women became known to me and I talked to two of them by telephone and wrote all three.(3) I asked them not to ordain Betty Bone Schiess. "I hope you will not do this for the future of her ministry and for the irreparable damage this will do to the Church. The Church will survive long after you and I are gone and this crisis passed, but I don't know how effective the Episcopal Church can be after another division like this one will cause." July 29 came and passed, the House of Bishops met in Chicago and stated these were invalid ordinations. The rest is history and the Episcopal Church is rent by this critical historical act.

The chronology of the events above, long though it may be, needs to be recalled prior to the reasons I am about to state why I could not ordain Betty Bone Schiess and why I will not ordain a woman to the priesthood until General Convention 1976 authorizes me to do so. I must state again I believe in and am for the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopacy and have voted for that each time it has come before the House of Bishops. I will continue to do so in spite of all that has happened since July 29. I firmly believe the church's ministry is poorer because of the church's slowness in making canonically possible that which the bishops of the church have stated is theologically proper.

A person who is ordered priest by a bishop represents the apostolic ministry of which the bishop is a symbol. A priest in the church of God is not limited to serve only in the diocese where ordained; a deacon is. A priest can be called to other dioceses; a deacon cannot. When I ordain, I ordain not just as the Bishop of Central New York, but as a bishop in the church of God. There has been considerable questioning of the new emphasis on collegiality which has surfaced in the House of Bishops since the Philadelphia event. Collegiality may be new to some. Vatican II did reintroduce this to some of Christendom, but this concept of the episcopacy had been mine long before I was elected bishop. It has been more and more evident since becoming a bishop. It is especially in my mind when I am involved in the sacraments. It is peculiarly present when I ordain.

My ability to act as a bishop in the church of God is not unlimited however, Freedom to act is the result of freedom given. In ordination, since this is the issue before us, my ability to ordain depends upon canonical procedures of the Episcopal Church as given by General Convention and local diocesan decisions. A minister and vestry of a parish must endorse the deacon to the Standing Committee.(4) The Standing Committee then recommends the deacon to the bishop. In our diocese we have a strong Commission on Ministry which does much of the Standing Committee's work. There are two members of the Standing Committee on the commission to provide liaison and personal communication. One is a priest, one a lay person.(5)

With these two concepts of the way the episcopacy functions in ordination, I was convinced the attempted ordination at Philadelphia was invalid. There are now differences of opinion on validity. I respect the differences of opinion, but in July 1974 my reasoning and learning came down on the side of invalidity. I so voted in Chicago.(6) After Philadelphia, I reviewed one of the books I used in seminary, one which I have not used much since I was graduated in 1948 from what was then the Episcopal Theological School. The issue of "validity" had not been one of the burning issues of my ministry during the past quarter century! I dusted off Kenneth Kirk's "The Apostolic Ministry," which I did reread in part after my election to the episcopacy. Bishop Kirk had written, and I had marked this in 1947 or 1948: "That is valid which, by virtue of satisfying certain conditions laid down by competent authority, is actually entitled to everything which it appears or claims to have a title."(7) He went on to give examples of a valid marriage - one which confers certain rights and imports certain duties by satisfying specified conditions laid down by civil and ecclesiastical law; a valid will, etc. To me to have the Holy Communion "valid," I cannot celebrate it alone. There have to be two or three persons present. This concept of validity said to me then and says to me now that that which is valid is that which is done by satisfying conditions laid down by competent authority. The conditions necessary for me to make valid an ordination of any deacon - male or female - was not present in Philadelphia. The Commission on Ministry, the Standing Committee - the responsible bodies - clergy and lay persons - representatives of the church in Central New York were bypassed. The congregation or community to be served by the priest, the congregation or community to recommend to the representative of the whole church, had no part in conditions required for ordination.

From the point of view of the bishops who attempted to ordain the eleven deacons, in spite of their statement,(8) I do not see how they could act as they did. For even a bishop like myself, who has diocesan responsibility and is thus accountable, could not ordain a person in my own diocese without recommendation by the church I serve and represent. Over against this, they were specifically asked by the bishop who has oversight of the deacon not to ordain that deacon. The competent authority, the bishop of the deacon, asked the authority not to do that which he was not competent to do.

It also seemed to me then as it does now that the General Convention in Louisville stated, by the action of the House of Deputies in defeating the attempt to make possible the ordination of women, that it was not the will of the competent authority, the Episcopal Church, to authorize bishops to ordain women. I think the House of Deputies acted unwisely; I think their procedure on the divided vote is archaic; I think there were emotional overtones resulting from the debate over the election of the Presiding Bishop. Yet, regardless of my own personal thoughts and feelings, the General Convention said women were not yet to be ordained priests in the Episcopal Church. As a bishop, I have promised to be obedient to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

I think it should be said here that after Louisville several of us bishops who had women deacons, several of those deacons, and several other concerned clergy and laypersons met to see what could be done concerning the ordination of women in the aftermath of Louisville. One by one, those bishops who had deacons who were female dropped out of those gatherings. I personally left because it became clear to me there were some present who wanted one of us bishops to ordain a woman before the canons were changed. At the last such meeting I attended, I stated quite clearly my position that I would not do that. I no longer received notices of the meetings.

There is also the issue of recognizing what happened at Philadelphia, or, in light of the Committee on Theology of the House of Bishops statement in Mexico, of "completing the incomplete." Many of us bishops who have oversight of the Philadelphia eleven have been approached by our deacons to "regularize," "recognize," "complete" or approve of their priesthood. There has been considerable pressure upon me to do so, even rumors of legal action or an appeal to the Human Rights Commission on grounds of sexual discrimination in job employment. I inquired of my chancellor and the Committee on Theology to see if a local bishop could regularize or complete what was done in Philadelphia. Basically, both gave the same opinion that, before any "completing" was possible, there would have to be "constitutionally-consistent authorization by the church." They and I did not see that as a diocesan possibility. This is consistent with the Anglican Consultative Council's statement that the policy on the ordination of women to the priesthood should be determined by the various provinces of the Anglican Communion and our province in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Therefore, I believe I cannot ordain a woman to the priesthood before General convention nor can I complete what was done at Philadelphia until some statement comes from General Convention.

There are two issues which General Convention will have to face having to do with the ordination of women. One is canonical change to authorize it; the other, what to do about the eleven women involved in the Philadelphia event. These two issues must be kept separate. It would be tragic if emotional reactions because of the latter would prevent the former from happening. They must be seen as separate issues. I would hope that these issues would be introduced into the House of Bishops first. We have voted twice for the ordination of women in principle and the last time by a much wider margin than before. If introduced in the house, we should deal first with a canonical change which would allow for the ordination of women. If passed, then that should be sent to the House of Deputies. Should that pass, then I would hope that legislation would be begun in the House of Bishops to deal with the possible completion of what happened in Philadelphia. The handling of this will be more difficult for there are more issues involved here than just the ordination of women. Authority, obedience, disobedience, diocesan vs national church authority, sexuality, priesthood to name but a few. I would hope the House of Bishops would assume here the pastoral role which is ours and perform not in a reactionary way in dealing with these women. They have done a great service in drawing the attention of the whole church to a great injustice. They should not be punished; disciplined and forgiven, but not punished. I believe also that my brother bishops who were involved in the Philadelphia event should be disciplined and forgiven. It would seem wise to me for the entire General Convention meeting in Minnesota, at one of the early celebrations of the Holy Eucharist for the bishops and deputies, to have a special general confession on the issue of the ordination of women. The divisions, hurts and pains caused by this issue have wounded deeply this part of the Body of Christ. In no way can I see our actions as pleasing in God's sight. It would be a public penance on this issue to hear: “We are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The rememberance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father: for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter, Serve and please thee in newness of life.”

I make one final suggestion as to how the church might “complete the incomplete” of the Philadelphia event. I believe some versed in liturgics, some in theology, some in pastoral care, some in canon law could devise a brief sentence like the sentence in Conditional Baptism: “If you are not already baptized, Name, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” I believe the General Convention could authorize the bishops of the Philadelphia eleven to do such, if all the diocesan canonical requirements for ordination to the priesthood were met. I would welcome some such authorization to say in such a service, “If you are not already ordained to the priesthood, Betty, may God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, give his Holy Spirit to you; fill you with grace and power and make you a Priest in His Church.”

Therefore, as of this date I will not ordain women to the priesthood until General Convention 1976 authorizes me to do so, because of the corporate nature of the church's ministry as represented in the office of the ordaining bishop and the necessity for diocesan approval in recommending persons for priesthood. I propose this year to continue ordaining women to the diaconate, believing General Convention 1976 will permit the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy. Should General Convention 1976 take the same action it did in 1973, I will reappraise the future of my role as a bishop in the church of God.

Notes

1. Robert B. Hall, Virginia; Paul Moore Jr., New York; Philip F. McNairy, Minnesota; Lyman C. Ogilby, Pennsylvania; George E. Rath, Newark; Robert R. Spears Jr., Rochester; Arthur A. Vogel, West Missouri.

2. The letter to the Standing Committee was dated June 11,1974; the letter to the chairperson of the Commission on Ministry was undated. His reply to her was dated June 20, 1974.

3. Daniel Corrigan, Robert DeWitt, Edward R. Welles II.

4. In this particular situation the vestry of Grace Church, Syracuse made such an endorsement dated July 21, 1974. It was signed by the vestry but not the minister. The senior warden signed in the space marked “Minister of the Church.” The rector was on vacation.

5. The Standing Committee made such a recommendation to me for Betty Bone Schiess dated November 8, 1974. It was signed by five of the eight members. They had received from the Commission on Ministry a statement which “attests to the personal readiness of the Reverend Betty Bone Schiess for ordination to the priesthood.” That was dated November 5, 1974

6. Report of the Committee on Resolutions, August 1975 (see Appendix).

7. Kenneth Kirk, The Apostolic Ministry (Morehouse-Gorham: New York, 1946), p. 33.

8. "An Open Letter to the Church," The Witness, August 25, 1974 (see Appendix).

Biography

The Right Reverend Ned Cole was consecrated Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of Central New York in 1964. He became Diocesan Bishop in 1969. From 1956 to 1964 he was Dean of Christ Church Cathedral in St. Louis, Missouri. His prior ministry was as Curate at Calvary Church, Columbia, Missouri and Rector of Grace Church in Jefferson City.

Bishop Cole has both the Bachelor of Arts and Doctor of Divinity degrees from Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. He holds a Bachelor of Divinity degree from the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts and attended the University of Missouri School of Law from 1939 to 1940.

Before taking his B.D. degree, Bishop Cole was secretary to the Secretary of State in his native Missouri (1940 to 1942). He served in the Armed Forces from 1942 to 1945.

Since entering the ordained ministry, Bishop Cole has been active in numerous organizations, including the National Council of Churches, the New York State Council of Churches, the New York State Commission of Human Rights and the Episcopal Delegation to the Consultation of Church Union.

Copyright (c) 2007: All of the texts and techniques (pedagogical and relational)
displayed in this site are copyrighted materials.