Sir, Rosemary Callender (letters, May 5) says that opposition to the ordination of women as bishops in the Church of England “cannot be ecclesiastical, otherwise there would have been no ordination of women in the first place”. She concludes from this that “the opposition is about sex discrimination”.

The reason why there were first women priests was because of the gradualist tactics of the proponents of women’s ordination. Many of us argued that, since episcopacy was the source of holy order, they should have begun by arguing and campaigning for women bishops.

There is not a single diocese in the Church of England in which the appointment of a woman as its bishop would not be controversial. Consequently, that “bishop” could not possibly be a focus of unity. If that isn’t an ecclesiastical (or, more properly, ecclesial) objection, I don’t know what is.

The Rev Stephen Jones
Carnforth, Lancs

Sir, Philip J. Rosato, SJ, in his Commentary on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), wrote that most members of the theological magisterium would consider that female ordination is a canonical rather than a dogmatic issue and is therefore open to revision as social and pastoral needs change.

That for more than a thousand years deaconesses instructed and baptised female catechumens is evidence that, in the past, bishops deemed women worthy of sharing in their apostolic task.

Anne Mothersill
Hurstpierpoint, W Sussex

Sir, As a life-long member (so far) of the Church of England, it is discouraging to witness its present contortions in trying to accommodate the ordination of women with their logical subsequent elevation to the episcopate, with those who oppose any such move on grounds that cannot be ecclesiastical, otherwise there would have been no ordination of women in the first place (report, April 29). It must therefore be concluded that the opposition is about sex discrimination, in contravention of the Equal Opportunities legislation, not to mention the Church’s teaching to “love one another”.

It would be heartening were the Lambeth Conference to spend time celebrating and encouraging the talents and potential of its women clergy rather than indulging further in a damage limitation exercise with opt-out clauses for those who disagree, which systematically denigrates all ordained women.

Rosemary Callender
Hereford

Sir, In answer to Malcom Bowden (letter, April 30) it isn’t that I can't face women bishops; I number more than one woman priest among my friends and admire them as pastors. But I doubt if my Church had the authority to ordain them as priests. It seems to me (to borrow words of the Reformers) “a fond thing vainly invented and founded on no sure warrant of Scripture”. Until I am sure, I cannot affirm their sacraments, however much I should like to.

Yet Mr Bowden is right to imply that the real debate goes much deeper than women or gay clergy. Is our Church to insist on nothing but what may be proved from Scripture “as this church and realm hath received the same” (which we promised at ordination), or are we free to fashion not just its style but its beliefs to accord with current Western thinking? In other words, what is the nature of the Gospel that we are supposed to be preaching?