Priests and the People.
Saturday, July 26th, 2008
Increasing liberalisation in the Western developed nations and the legalisation of human
rights has meant that within traditional areas, such as the Church, recognition of these
legal and human rights has had to be incorporated in their institutions. It is illegal in
the European Union to discriminate against an individual because of their age, gender,
race or religious beliefs. All this is well and good. The Church of England has perhaps
dealt with these issues better than most.
The ordination of women became accepted in the Church of England and women were first
ordained in 1994, with resounding success. Many parishes declared that they prefered
women as priests, since they were more sympathetic and had superior people skills.
Individual priest and Bishops were allowed to opt out, and refuse women in their
dioceses. Bizarrely, several priests were permitted to become Catholic priests, despite
being Church of England, on the basis that the Catholics still retained descrimination
against women, something that would never have been accepted in secular society. These
new ‘Catholic’ priests were accepted as Catholics even if they were married, although
Catholic priests are not permitted to marry. This shows us that the issue is not so much
religious as misogynous, an accusation which has often been levelled against the Catholic
Church in particular in the past.
Several religions accept women, including traditional Buddhism and Islam, which of course
doesn’t officially ordinate leaders. Early Christianity also accepted women as religious
leaders, the early priests. The exclusion of women first took root in the early Middle
Ages, with the reformations of St Augustine. The current argument is about the next step,
ordinating women priests as bishops. It appears that church leaders who are happy to have
women priests under them, as it were, do not want to let the women get on top. Although
Jesus claimed that in heaven there are no male nor female, on earth there still is, or at
least in the Church.
Tanzania began the rebellion against the subsequent step of ordinating openly gay
priests. The Catholic Church, which requires its priests to remain celibate, has long
been recognised as a bastion of suppressed gay men escaping embarrassment, and indeed the
Church offers priesthood as a way out of temptation for gay men. It is alright to be gay,
as long as one isn’t ‘practising’.
This issue differs from the woemn issue in that there is no sense that one can be a
non-practising woman. One is just born like that. Without doubt, in one’s heart and soul,
there is no male or female but all are equal before God. There is no restriction on women
entering the Kingdom of Heaven, for example. Gay men, however, would have to be
practising gay sex to be rejected, whether by God or just the Church is the point in
question.
One of the many problems with accepting gay men as long as they aren’t practising or
openly gay, is that you are opeinig the floodgates to men who are either hiding or
denying they are gay, perhaps even to themselves. This has led to nefarious crimes
against children which have disgraced the Catholic Church in the past decade. The
Anglican Church in the UK has so far accepted gay clergy, so long as they aren’t
practising. Pressure has been on however, for the Church to live according to Godly love,
and accept all humanity, as Jesus said God loves every hair on the sparrow’s head, and
loves mankind even moreso. Compassion seems to dictate acceptance of all Christians,
irrespective of their various quirks and singularities.
And so it came to pass that inevitably in 1996 Anglican bishops began to ordinate openly
gay priests. Society would not have it otherwise, since it is completely acceptable to be
open about one’s sexuality under European law, and illegal to discriminate against gay
people. I have wondered whether external political pressure was on the Church to cease
its discrimination, though this hasn’t been mentionned. In Tanzania, where gay rights are
not as far advanced as in Europe, the Anglican clergy were furious, and said they would
refuse to recognise any church which ordained gay men. They have been a bit annoyed about
gay marriages in church too.
In 1997, an American Anglican church sent two gay Bishops to serve in Kenya. While I
consider this to be one of the bravest actions I have ever seen, on the part of the
Church as well as the men themselves, it clearly was intended to test the Kenyans.
“We see in your ministry a wonderful expression of the Gospel promise that there is
neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus”,
the Americans said. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Head of all Anglican
Churchs throughout the world, has himself ordained a ‘non-practising’ gay priest, but has
recently declared that all sex outside marriage, including homeosexuality, violates the
Church’s precepts. But does it?
While the church is ‘about’ Jesus, it was founded by Peter in Rome, heavily influenced by
Paul, who didn’t himself know Jesus, and changed beyond recognition throughout the
centuries, particularly in the Middle Ages.
The contemporary Church is an invention, and can be however the current administration
want it to be. Reformers say it must be modern and inclusive, and accord with current
laws against discrimination. Radicals say that what matters most is the spiritual aspect
of Christianity, and the Church needs to be mainly about compassion to the whole
community.
It is certain that discrimination causes a great deal of pain and anguish among believers
and their families who may not be within the strait norms permitted. 50% of all
believers are women, if not more. It seems almost impossible to maintain an exclusive and
rejecting attitude towards people, whatever their private weaknesses or circumstances may
be, in this day and age. Jesus himself does not seem to have ever rejected anyone,
including the Samaritan woman who had many husbands, one whom she was living with when
Jesus kindly drank water with her, despite current ruling to disciriminate against
Samaritans and women.
African Anglicans are currently boycotting the international Lambeth Conference over this
issue, and it looks likely that there will be a schism over it. It seems a shame that the
years the Churches in the UK and USA have spent toiling over this issue, with which they
are uncomfortable, should not be made use of by the Church in Africa, and that one of the
few positive links we have should be broken. African Church leaders should think very
carefully about whether a knee-jerk reaction which is so divisive in itself is worth it
for the sole purpose of excluding people who are so desparate to play a part in the
religion that they love. Rejection from their church must be a great burden on those who
already have so many self-doubts and obstacles in their lives. Is ideology the
appropriate tool to respond to these particular Christians?
