Gender in German: Time to abolish it (or change its name)

After a long hiatus, there was a topic that came up in an online conversation that has inspired me to write about a topic near and dear to me: German grammatical gender. Mind you, I have mastered German pretty well — in fact I can write paragraph after paragraph of flawless German (though for some reason every four or five paragraphs I have one that goes completely all to hell). I also actually think I do get why German has gender — and (hopefully) can show you how it works so that you can appreciate it.

What bugs me is the way grammatical gender is perceived, both inside and outside the German-speaking realm. This is what Mark Twain, in a fit of frustration, wrote about the subject:

Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl. [...] A tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female -- tomcats included, of course; a person's mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it -- for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person's nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven't any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.

[...]

In the German it is true that by some oversight of the inventor of the language, a Woman is a female; but a Wife (Weib) is not -- which is unfortunate. A Wife, here, has no sex; she is neuter; so, according to the grammar, a fish is he, his scales are she, but a fishwife is neither. To describe a wife as sexless may be called under-description; that is bad enough, but over-description is surely worse. A German speaks of an Englishman as the Engländer; to change the sex, he adds -in, and that stands for Englishwoman -- Engländerin. That seems descriptive enough, but still it is not exact enough for a German; so he precedes the word with that article which indicates that the creature to follow is feminine, and writes it down thus: "die Engländerin," -- which means "the she-Englishwoman." I consider that that person is over-described.

So it is easy to make fun of — if you don’t understand what gender is for and what it really is.

Grammatical gender in German actually has nothing — I mean nothing — to do with “gender” in the sexual sense. Zero. De nada. Twain’s observation above that a girl (das Mädchen) and a female (das Weib) are both “neuter”, while a cat is female regardless of its real gender (die Katze), should clue you in on this, but Twain definitely missed the point.

After some 20+ years of speaking the language on a daily basis, I think there is another explanation for the origin and purpose of grammatical gender. If you look at how plurals are formed, they are fairly consistent across each of the three genders. Usually this is taught as “if it is masculine, then it forms the plural like this”. I think that that is actually backwards. It is “masculine” because the plural is formed a certain way, not the other way around.

If a word’s plural adds an umlaut and an -e, like Topf -> Töpfe, then it almost certainly is masculine. Or if it remains unchanged in the plural, then it is also most likely masculine, like der Knochen -> die Knochen or der Knoten -> die Knoten.

If a word’s plural adds an -en or -n, like die Frau -> Frauen or Lampe -> Lampen, then it is almost certainly feminine.

If a word ends in a diminutive (-chen or -lein, such as Mädchen), or adds -er to form the plural, then it is almost certainly neuter. Hence das Mädchen becomes die Mädchen in the plural, or das Kind becomes die Kinder.

In the end, the “gender” is thus a tool for marking words for forming plurals in certain ways. It is nothing to do with sexual gender.

Granted, there are exceptions to these rule above, and Germans reading this will no doubt start posting them in response. The thing is, no language is 100% consistent — English is a particularly sloppy and irregular language. While German is indeed far more regular and systematic than English, that does not mean it is completely consistent. I submit that the plural is the real basis for the so-called “gender”.

So why bother with grammatical gender? Well, it actually helps make the language far more supple and subtle in phrasing and word order. German is able to play with word order in sentences in ways English can not remotely compete with. Consider the following three sentences:

Der Junge gibt dem Hund den Knochen.
Den Knochen gibt der Junge dem Hund.
Dem Hund gibt der Junge den Knochen.

All three nouns in this are “masculine” — der Junge (the boy), der Hund (the dog), and der Knochen (the bone). All three sentences thus mean almost exactly the same thing: The boy gives the dog the bone. The only subtle difference is one of emphasis. Where the first version matter-of-factly says the boy gives the dog the bone, the second emphasizes that the THE BONE was given, and the third emphasizes that THE DOG was given a bone. All this just by swapping word order — something which is impossible in English without adding prepositions. The bone gives the dog the boy means something completely different and only makes sense when we add those prepositions or use passive voice: The bone was given by the boy to the dog.

English had this same system once upon a time, when it was still Anglo-Saxon, before the Norman invasion of 1066. The genders, along with nearly all traces of the cases (dative and accusative), were lost over time as English became the language of simple peasants, while the elite spoke Norman French for some 300 years. We get by without it in English, but I think the language is actually somewhat poorer without it. Yes, it is easier to learn for new speakers, but it is also far less flexible and efficient in expressing complex thoughts.

Seen that way, the “gender” could really just as well have been called the “flavor”, with “der” words being sour words, “die” words being sweet words, and “das” words being salty words. The masculine, feminine, and neuter labels have caused all sorts of misunderstandings — and not just by non-native speakers.

To illustrate this misunderstanding: German and English have diverged dramatically in the way they try to become “gender neutral”. Where English tries to abolish all traces of gender from daily language, such as avoiding the -ess ending and preferring neutral terms instead — flight attendant instead of stewardess, chair instead of chairman, etc. — German has gone the polar opposite way.

German feminists get really offended if you forget the -in feminine ending for a woman’s job position, for example, or forget to use it in the plural. So instead of forming the plural for der Lehrer as die Lehrer to encompass all teachers, whether male or female, they insist on using the plural feminine form of -innen — Lehrer und Lehrerinnen — or sometimes resorting to the rather clumsy short form of LehrerInnen with a capital I.

This results is some really tortured and clumsy grammar. Where politicians, for example, would address others as a group as liebe Bürger (“dear citizens”), now they resort to liebe Bürgerinnen und Bürger (“dear female and male citizens”).

In our church, this had an even more strange effect — one that I tried to point out at our synod in a debate on the subject, but which unfortunately got nowhere. You see, our church — the Old Catholic Church in Germany — is quite vocal about supporting women’s ordination. Which is fine, I support it, too. But part of the point of women’s ordination, I think, is the notion that a person’s gender should not matter in performing their function as clergy. Otherwise, if there is a difference between the genders, that unwittingly opens up a hole for arguments as to why women should not be ordained.

Either gender matters for the priesthood, or it doesn’t. I happen to think it does not. But if it does…then what? And if it does not, then why insist on it being mentioned?

So ironically, by insisting on saying die Priesterinnen und Priester (“female and male priests”) instead of just die Priester to mean “priests”, the feminists among us are in effect forcing us to note the gender where gender isn’t supposed to be relevant.

This on top of the fact that science is showing us how gender is far more complex than a mere binary of male and female. It just is not the case that a person is solely male or solely female. The two blend into each other, like a continuum. Some people are well on the male side of that continuum, some are well to the female side, but in the middle there is a grey area. What about intersexed or transsexual people in Germany? How are feminists going to label them? Would an intersexed priest — not outside the realm of possibility! — be a Priesterin or a Priester? Would a transsexual teacher be a Lehrer or Lehrerin?

If we simply dump the whole idea of grammatical gender having anything to do with biological or sociological gender, then the whole problem disappears — while maintaining the grammatical flourishes and subtlety that grammatical gender provide.

For those Germans reading this (and I would be happy to translate this into German to make it easier for them to read!), think about it. If you really want German to be an inclusive language, and I hope you do, then let’s stop using “masculine/feminine/neuter” to describe grammatical gender. Or at least stop mixing grammatical gender with gender politics. Because it just makes no sense to do it.

Utrecht Old Catholics and the Orthodox Church: Meeting on Crete

Last year, a delegation of eleven representatives of the Union of Utrecht visited Crete to meet with various representatives of the Orthodox Church. The meeting was planned by the Orthodox-Old Catholic Working Group as a way of building on the successful work of the joint commission in 1987 and deepening ties further.

The German Old Catholic diocesan website has an interesting report in German about the visit. I will summarize it here for those of you not up on your Goethe and Brecht, while adding some thoughts of my own.

The host, Crete's local Orthodox church, is semi-autonomous, formally belonging to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople. The Old Catholic visitors noted how well received and respected they were by their hosts. One of the most arresting signs of this was when the Orthodox bishop of Kisamos and Selinon invited the attendees to a service that Sunday, where both Orthodox and Old Catholics were included in commemorative prayers -- an act that is normally only done for Christians in communion. The Archbishop of Crete also attended to his guests in such a way that the reporter is reminded of Mark 10:43 -- whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant.

During the meetings, it was repeatedly and clearly emphasized that the Ecumenical Patriarch himself has a strong interest in continuing and deepening dialog and relations with the Union of Utrecht, regardless of the differences and problems that still exist that may seem to make full communion difficult if not impossible. Interestingly, the ordination of women is expressly not the central issue -- Orthodox theologians have said that women's ordination is not dogmatically impossible -- but rather the expression of communion on differing levels. That is in reference to Old Catholics having a relatively low bar for agreeing to communion and inviting to partake in the Eucharist, specifically to the agreements the Old Catholics have with us Anglicans (full communion) and the German mainline Protestant church, the EKD (invitation to members to partake in Eucharist, without full communion). From an Orthodox perspective, these agreements simply could not exist under their standards for full communion or sharing in the Eucharist, and indeed the Bonn Agreement is remarkable for how little it defines or declares.

Overall, the study trip was well received by all participants and gave the visiting Old Catholic students a much deeper appreciation of the Orthodox Church.

Kyrie eleison. :)

So what's an Old Catholic, anyway?

You will no doubt have noticed me talking a lot about not just Anglicans and Episcopalians, but also "Old Catholics". The thing is, relatively few people have heard of them, and many immediately get the wrong idea from the name. One question that gets asked a lot is whether we do Masses in Latin -- i.e. Old Catholics get confused with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which is a quite different thing to say the least. In fact Old Catholics and the SSPX are almost mirror images of each other.

Essentially, Old Catholics in Europe have two origins -- the first in the general chaos of the Reformation in the Netherlands and the controversy over Jansenism, the second as a backlash predominantly in German-speaking countries against the papal dogmas proclaimed by Pius IX at the First Vatican Council in the 1870s.

To make matters more confusing, in North America there are many groups claiming the use of the name "Old Catholic", with wildly varying degrees of legitimacy. Usually the term "Old Catholic" pops up amongst people calling themselves "Independent Catholics" or similar. Sad to say, but many would-be bishops seem to view getting an Old Catholic line of succession as a kind of quick and easy way of claiming legitimacy, as if ordination was a magic trick performed by the dude with the right mojo and hey presto, you've got your very own church. So many "Old Catholics" in America are what are called episcopi vagantes, or wandering bishops -- bishops without a church, in effect. Which in Catholic ecclesiology is a total non sequitur.

It is thus important, for clarity's sake, to differentiate between the "regular" Old Catholics in the Union of Utrecht, and the "irregular" Old Catholics in North America. The relations between the two have been strained or virtually non-existent, with the Utrecht Old Catholics generally taking a dim view of their counterparts in North America partly because of their association with Arnold Harris Mathew (see below).

The only "regular" Old Catholic jurisdiction in North America was the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC), which in spite of the name is located in the US, based in Scranton, Illinois. Unfortunately, they left the Union in the 1990s over women's ordination, so the Union currently has no representation in North America -- there are thus no "regular" Old Catholics there (though that hopefully will change, as contacts are being established and the various irregular churches being nudged into joining together).

To get an idea of what the Old Catholics are, I'll concentrate on the regular Old Catholics as defined above. I mean no offense to Old Catholics in North America when I make this distinction, but it is an important one for outsiders to understand the workings of Old Catholicism, and obviously I'm far more familiar with the Utrecht Old Catholics. So let's look at the history and origins.

Old Catholics in the Netherlands, 17th century

The Dutch Old Catholics were once part of the Roman Catholic Church, as the Archdiocese of Utrecht. That archdiocese had the right to elect and choose its own archbishop, without consulting Rome -- something which today is, sadly, almost unheard of in the Roman communion. Then in the 17th century, there was some controversy over Jansenism in Holland, with the Jesuits in particular accusing the Utrecht church of harboring Jansenists and also sharing their views, which Rome condemned as heresy. A convoluted series of events led to the chapter in Utrecht electing their own archbishop, and getting a Roman Catholic bishop travelling through to agree to ordain their elected bishop. Then Rome excommunicated them for what Rome regarded as open rebellion, and essentially disclaimed any presence in the Netherlands until the 1850s. All subsequent Archbishops of Utrecht were excommunicated as soon as they were ordained, again because they supposedly did it without permission from Rome. This led to the rather bizarre legalistic hair-splitting way Rome views Old Catholic holy orders and sacraments -- "valid, but illicit". So the Dutch continued to have bishops with valid orders, preserving their line of apostolic succession.

The name "Old Catholic" came into being when Rome began to re-establish their own jurisdiction in the Netherlands in the 19th century. Since the Utrecht archdiocese considered itself to be the "regular" Catholic Church in the Netherlands, they became known as the "Old" Catholics, since they were there first. Indeed for some time they continued to refer to themselves as being Roman Catholic, but with an "old" jurisdiction.

Old Catholics in German-speaking countries, 19th century

Fast forward to 1870 and the First Vatican Council. There, Pope Pius IX rammed through the twin papal dogmas -- papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction -- over the protests of many bishops, especially in Europe and particularly in German-speaking areas. These bishops tried to boycott the council and thus prevent the dogmas from taking effect, to no avail. At that time, many clubs and groups formed to resist and protest the dogmas. Eventually Pius IX simply excommunicated the lot of them, leaving them effectively without a church of their own.

A large number of these Catholics didn't want to become Protestant or Orthodox, but to remain Catholic and to stay true to what they believed in. They established contact with Anglicans and the Utrecht archdiocese, and formed churches in the various countries they represented -- in particular Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Poland. These churches were intended and described as "provisional" churches, that is, they expected to rejoin with Rome at a future date when the First Vatican Council was revoked or revised.

Since Catholic ecclesiology requires a bishop with valid orders, they were able to have the Archbishop of Utrecht ordain their first bishops. Then these churches joined together in the Union of Utrecht, which is the Old Catholic counterpart to the Anglican Communion. Early on, talks were held with Anglicans and Orthodox with a view to uniting them, but in the end only the Anglicans agreed to join up, and did so with the Bonn Agreement in 1931. Ever since, Anglicans and Utrecht Old Catholics have been in full communion, exchanging priests, liturgy, theology and so forth, and members of the respective churches are welcomed as full members of the others. (Hence I'm still formally Episcopalian, while being a member of an Old Catholic parish and serving in the Old Catholic synod.)

Arnold Harris Mathew and the English Old Catholics, late 19th century

In the meantime, a rather colorful character named Arnold Harris Mathew approached the Union with a view to establishing an English Old Catholic church. There is much controversy surrounding Mathew, and he does seem to me to be a bit of a dodgy person -- not a charlatan, but certainly erratic and unpredictable. It turned out that the "church" he claimed to represent simply did not exist, at least not in the way he claimed, and the Union cut off support and ties with Mathew. He in turn declared independence from the Union (which seems to me to be like saying "you can't fire me, I quit!") and made contact with various people in North America, ordaining large numbers of bishops without much apparent concern for whether or not they had a legitimate interest in being a bishop or whether they were appropriate for the office. Eventually he converted back to being Roman Catholic and died isolated from the Old Catholics.

Irregular Old Catholics in North America, late 19th century to today

It is from these episcopi vagantes in North America that most of the "irregular" Old Catholics have their holy orders and apostolic succession. The North American Old Catholic movement, if it could be called as such, quickly splintered into a myriad of various churches with a wild range of beliefs, such as the "Liberal Catholics", who regrettably incorporated things like reincarnation and theosophy into their belief systems.

Today many of these irregular Old Catholics -- those with more orthodox beliefs, unlike the Liberal Catholics -- are trying, with guidance and help from the Episcopal Church USA and the Union of Utrecht, to finally come in from the cold and become a regular Old Catholic jurisdiction with recognition from and in communion with Utrecht. Unfortunately from what I am told, there are a lot of egos at work, preventing serious cooperation, and the project has not been crowned with success so far, but at least some progress has been made.

Of special note is the Cornerstone Old Catholic Community in Minneapolis, Minnesota, whose priest, Robert Caruso+, has been beating the drum to try and encourage more cooperation and to reconcile European and American Old Catholics; the Conference of Old Catholic Bishops, which transformed itself in September 2010 into the Old Catholic Church Province of the United States (sponsored by the Union of Utrecht); and the North American Old Catholic Church, led by Bishop Michael Seneco. Each of these are attempts at getting such a joint jurisdiction off the ground by getting the various bishops under one roof. Hopefully they will succeed and join the Union, and someday the Union of Utrecht can also deepen its ties with the Anglican Communion, maybe even fully merge. But that is years, maybe even decades, away -- sad to say.

Similarities and differences between Old Catholics and Anglicans

An obvious question is, what are Old Catholics like? Given that each national member church is autonomous and has its own history, it is difficult to make blanket statements. But it is possible to note a few differences from Anglicans. First, the liturgy and style is more "high church" as a rule than what you find in Anglicanism. Second, the traditions, tastes, and accentuations are clearly Continental and not English. Third, there are more concrete and clear practices related to the Real Presence in the Eucharist -- things like tabernacles and sanctuary lamps are more widespread. (Which I think is a Good Thing.) And lastly, I would argue that Old Catholics as a whole are more liberal than Anglicans in general, particularly in the question of homosexuality, and in a more limited sense in women's ordination. Old Catholics also are clearer in their belief in seven sacraments (which Anglicans tend to hedge by calling baptism and Communion the "great sacraments", implying the others are subordinate or not important). And of course, Old Catholics' holy orders and sacraments are recognized as valid by Rome, whereas Anglican orders are not.

I was once asked by my priest if I noticed any differences with Anglicanism, and I jokingly asked him, "I dunno, what's your position on polygamy?" He never did answer, so I can't tell you. ;)

There are also parallels and similarities. For one thing, German Old Catholics have borrowed liturgical elements from Anglicans, in particular from the Canadian Anglican liturgy, as well as a number of classic Anglican hymns, such as Hyrfrydol and The day thou gavest (an old favorite of mine). Theologically speaking, I have yet to detect any particular differences of note. Both support and practice women's ordination; both have an international communion with a clearly Catholic and episcopal ecclesiology (i.e. run by bishops with territorial dioceses); both are set up as a group of autonomous national churches in communion with each other; both believe in the Real Presence as the fundamental understanding of the Eucharist, albeit with different ways of reflecting that. So while on the surface, you would see some differences in style and practice, on the whole there is really no difference in substance as far as I can see.

As an Episcopalian in an Old Catholic parish, I have served as diocesan delegate three times, as a member of the parish vestry for five years, and numerous other jobs. In other words, I feel quite at home and am living out the promise of full communion. I look forward to the day when that full communion can blossom and add other episcopal churches to create a new super-church, with Anglicans, Old Catholics and various independent episcopal churches such as the Mar Thoma church or the Philippine Independent Church joining as one global jurisdiction as a counterweight to Rome and Constantinople.

Here's hoping that the Way of Christ leads to that unity, and to unity with all Catholic Christians and beyond.

Church and communion: Rome and Utrecht

According to a news report on the German Old Catholic diocesan website, the Old Catholic-Roman Catholic dialogue will continue after a positive reaction from both sides. I'm quite pleased, if skeptical that it will lead anywhere, but at least both sides are willing to try.

At the last Old Catholic synod in 2010 in Mainz, where I was a delegate, we discussed the joint paper released by the dialogue commission, not without some serious controversy. It saddens me that some Old Catholics who used to be Roman Catholic can't seem to get past their own personal animosities -- no matter how justified those animosities may be -- and thump tubs against Rome at every opportunity, but that is exactly what went on there. Some of the arguments used against talking with Rome were absurd, to say the least. The bishop had to intervene in the debate more than once because of that.

That said, there are indeed some potential roadblocks which on the face of it don't have any obvious solutions.

The most interesting question, I think, is how women's ordination will be handled. There is simply no way Old Catholics can or will turn back from it. Rome could, in theory, still tolerate it -- in fact that is the exact wording in the joint report -- in a church with which it is in communion, but it would be extremely tricky given the language used in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, wherein John Paul II essentially said that the Church is not able, or is not permitted, to ordain women.

While Ordinatio sacerdotalis is not formally a dogma, it would still be a remarkable about-face if Rome were to accept Old Catholics ordaining women, and at the very latest, once Old Catholics decide they want a female bishop -- which is only a matter of time -- then Rome will be really in a corner.

The second issue that will be thorny, to say the least, is indeed all those former Roman Catholics who are now Old Catholic. By leaving the Roman communion, they were automatically excommunicated as schismatics. If Rome were to establish full communion with Utrecht Old Catholics, then the status of these people -- such as, oh, most of the Old Catholic priests as well as a good-sized chunk of the membership -- would have to be clarified in such a way as to allow them to join the Roman communion without having some kind of penance or guilt hung on them. Even the relatively mild phrasing in the report, where Rome would offer a kind of amnesty or lift the penalty of excommunication, caused angry and pained reactions among many members, who felt that they had done nothing wrong by following their conscience (which, strictly speaking, is true). And of course Rome would also potentially lose credibility by merely lifting a penalty for something it has so long condemned.

A third issue affects me more personally -- what about the Old Catholics' relations with us Anglicans? The plain implication of the document is that if Old Catholics want communion with Rome, they will have to sacrifice their communion with Anglicans, as well as their cordial agreements with the mainline Protestants in Germany, the EKD. From all I have heard and have been told, this is one thing Old Catholics are not willing to sacrifice, meaning Rome would have to somehow reconcile themselves to being in communion with a church that is in turn in communion with a church whose orders and sacraments it doesn't recognize (see Apostolicae Curae).

There is one possible solution to this that has been discussed before, mostly by Anglo-Catholics. While Rome has not recognized Anglican orders at least since Apostolicae Curae was published, the reason rests almost entirely on the supposed defects of the ordination rite used during the reign of Edward VI. The concept is that the line of succession of valid bishops, and with it the validity of the church, was broken by using a rite that wasn't up to snuff. Reinstating a valid rite later, therefore, would not restore the validity of the church -- at least according to the usual "pipeline theory" of apostolic succession.

But here's the thing: Anglican ordination rites in their current form do not have the alleged defect. So if a validly ordained bishop were to participate in an Anglican bishop's ordination, he (though probably not she...) would in theory be validly ordained, even in Rome's eyes, and could pass that valid succession on to someone else, at least assuming that someone else is male. Since that has indeed been happening ever since the Bonn Agreement between Old Catholics and Anglicans in 1931, in theory most if not all Anglican bishops today should therefore be validly ordained, no matter what Apostolicae Curae says. (I did spend some time a while back checking the successions of all current American Episcopal bishops, and sure enough, all can trace one or more lines back to Utrecht.)

So there is a possible grand bargain here. Rome finally recognizes Anglican orders, which removes a block to Rome agreeing on communion with Old Catholics. And in both cases, Rome agrees that women's ordination is a possibility, but refuses to do so itself -- more or less the same solution used within the Anglican Communion, which has churches that do and don't ordain women.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

No matter what, the continuing dialog between Rome and Utrecht will be fascinating to watch. I highly recommend ordering and reading the joint paper, Kirche und Kirchengemeinschaft (Church and Communion), which can be ordered on the German Old Catholic diocesan website. There is also an English-language research paper that discusses the current state of the dialog between Utrecht and Rome, as well as the PNCC, an Old Catholic church that split from the Union of Utrecht over women's ordination. +David Hamid, Suffragan Bishop of the Diocese in Europe, also published an article on the topic. Lastly, the Union of Utrecht has an article in English discussing the current state of dialogue with Rome.

Women's ordination: The real question is...

I wrote this in German as a post on the blog "Frech. Fromm. Frau.", but felt it is useful as a worthwhile summary of my views on the issue of women's ordination. Here is a translation into English, slightly edited.

As a child, I experienced the controversy in the Episcopal Church USA over women's ordination, which was emotional and at times bitter. My mother was a diocesan delegate at the time and took me along to the plenary sessions. I can't remember much of the content, but I will never forget the very tense and angry atmosphere.

In the end, many opponents of women's ordination left the Episcopal Church and formed their own splinter churches, usually referred to as "Continuing Anglican" churches. Many of these are now forming a new anti-church, the Anglican Church of North America, or ACNA.

Thus after those bitter times, women's ordination was "legal", but it took some time before female priests became a reality for most people. After all, it takes time to educate and examine potential candidates. So you could say I experienced the whole development of women's ordination live.

For me, women's ordination is simply reality. Granting women holy orders is thus quite possible, period, end of story. Female priests are an enrichment of our lives -- insofar as one is open to the possibility.

I would say that they are not merely priests with XX-23 chromosomes. Women as priests bring change with them, and that is to be expected. However, I would also say that their gender had less to do with the changes relative to Roman Catholic priests than the fact that most are married and have children. That is the critical difference between Roman Catholic and Anglican or Old Catholic priests, not their gender. I am convinced of it.

There is also the question of whether such changes can be accepted by the grassroots. Here are the strongest arguments against women's ordination. It has little to do with Holy Scripture or dogma. Instead, it has everything do to with acceptance. The arguments for and against women's ordination are plainly smokescreens for what the individual people want -- otherwise one or the other side would have won the debate long ago and it would no longer be an issue. Instead, it grows.

If one tries to force their own idea through against the will of the grassroots, then schism is pre-programmed. You have to be honest enough to accept that as reality, whatever your theology. The only question is how this schism is handled or discussed. The model of "flying bishops" in the Church of England was a messy compromise, but it did work rather well for a time, until that compromise began to crumble because of pressure from the left, and until Rome decided to try luring conservative Anglicans across the Tiber.

Naturally you can dismiss the necessity of open discussion and just say the church is being held hostage by conservatives (or liberals). Maybe there is even something to that. But in the end, we must all ask ourselves the question: What is more important? Equal treatment of man and woman? Or the unity of the Holy Church? It is highly unlikely that both will be possible in the foreseeable future. And that is the question that everyone who discusses the issue must ask, and answer honestly, before any discussion can be productive.