On July 29, 1974, eleven women were ordained to the priesthood in Philadelphia; they are commonly referred to as the Philadelphia Eleven. The Philadelphia ordinations raised several important questions: the natures of the priesthood, the episcopate, the call to ordained ministry, ordination, and the church. The event was controversial for the wrong reasons, and now 50 years later, it is still quite possibly the most misunderstood event in the history of the Episcopal Church.
I note at the outset that this is not an article about whether women can or should be priests. It is about basic principles that apply to all, male and female, gay and straight, liberal and conservative. This article will attempt to demonstrate that the gender of the ordinands, although the cause of controversy at the time, was the one thing about the service that was unobjectionable, and that the real problems lay elsewhere.
Nor does this article attempt to determine whether the event was, on balance, a “good thing” or a “bad thing,” whether the pluses outweigh the minuses or vice versa. Readers must decide that for themselves, based on the information in this article, other sources of information, and their personal philosophies and temperaments.
With that said, here are the misunderstandings.
It was the first ordination of women priests in the Episcopal Church.
It was actually outside the Episcopal Church, since it was not authorized by any diocese. In the Episcopal Church, that is where the authority to ordain resides.
The canons prohibited women priests, so it had to be done illegally.
There was nothing in the canons, as they stood in 1974, that prohibited the ordination of women to the priesthood. What kept it from happening, aside from tradition, was a “gentlemen’s agreement” among the bishops that none would take unilateral action before specific approval by General Convention. Hence, there was, strictly speaking, no illegality in the action.
Although there was no specific prohibition, the use of masculine pronouns had that effect.
The canons in force in 1974 were written when it was understood that the masculine pronouns are also used for the generic. They were not removed until 1988, and so did not have the effect of prohibiting women’s ordinations.
The officiants were bishops of the Episcopal Church, so they had the authority to ordain.
The canons state that the officiant at ordination is to be the bishop of the diocese or another bishop authorized by the diocesan for the occasion. Unlike some ordination canons that are arbitrary matters of administration, this one reflects the polity of the church, part of its essential nature. The problem was not the sex of the ordinands but the status of the officiants. Ordained ministers do not have powers that they own as a personal possession, independent of the church.
The ordinations were irregular but valid and simply needed to be regularized.
The problem is the terminology. The ordinations were irregular, but the word implies that the problem was just a minor legal technicality, while it was also a violation of the church’s polity, part of the church’s essential nature. The decision of the 1976 convention was that the ordinations be “completed” (in the sense of completing the canonical requirements); the word “regularized” was not used. The concept of validity is a legal concept, reflecting the historic legalism of Rome. It is appropriate for contracts, wills, and other legal matters. A more appropriate concept here would be authenticity; the ordinations were not, at the time, an authentic act of the Episcopal Church.
The Eleven were the first women priests in the Episcopal Church.
They were among the first, since most of their ordinations were completed at the beginning of 1977, while other women were being ordained. In the meantime, there is a question as to how they could be seen as priests of any other church. (There is no such thing as a priest, without a church, any more than a colonel without an army, since the priesthood is part of the church’s ministry and does not have an existence of its own, apart from the church.) One possible theory is that the Eleven and their supporters had unwittingly formed what is known as a parachurch, a movement with one or more ecclesial functions but without formal structure and defined membership. This was the only church that authorized the ordinations in advance and recognized them in the immediate aftermath. The completion ceremonies, as described at the time in the church press, sound very much like what is done when a priest is received from a church whose orders are recognized.
The Philadelphia ordinations caused the convention of 1976 to pass a canon explicitly authorizing women priests.
This is the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). The ordinations risked causing a backlash that would have set the movement back. In addition to the more radical Women’s Ordination Now, which approved of unauthorized ordinations, there was the more moderate National Coalition for the Ordination of Women, working within the system and quietly behind the scenes. It was the moderates that got the vote in 1976. Whatever one thinks of radical action, the priesthood is not something that can be stolen; like academic degrees, it has to be conferred by appropriate authority.
Going outside an institution to do what cannot be done within it is not necessarily a bad thing and is often beneficial. It is how Melvil Dewey started the first library school, when Columbia told him he couldn’t have a coed school within an all-male university. A more recent phenomenon among Roman Catholics is the fellowship called Womenpriests, with ordinations since 2002; and a more radical group, Women-church, which practices ordination by the local congregation rather than by bishops.
One of the ironies of the event was that Suzanne Hiatt, who organized it, knew exactly how things are supposed to be done. She had planned to transfer into the Diocese of Delaware, be approved for ordination by the Standing Committee (another essential part of the church’s polity, reflecting our “constitutional episcopacy”), and ordained by the bishop of the diocese. As it happened, the bishop (William Mead) died before the plan could be put into effect.
The Philadelphia ordinations violated the church’s polity, risked a setback to the movement toward women’s ordination, and perpetuated misunderstandings. (It was cited as precedent in 1978 when traditionalists arranged an unauthorized consecration of bishops.) However, it also provided a vision and an inspiration, giving women hope that a vocation to the priesthood might be a practical possibility. While some will celebrate and others simply commemorate, all will agree that it was a highly significant event, however misunderstood.
The Rev. Lawrence N. Crumb is vicar of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Cottage Grove, Oregon, and has written book reviews for TLC since 1980.