The church of ‘no’
by Jeremiah Bartram on 23/10/09 at 7:15 am
First, the facts.
On October 20, the Vatican announced that it would create “personal ordinariates” that would provide a separate ecclesial structure within the Catholic church for both group and individual Anglican converts, with married former Anglican priests and their own (celibate) bishops. They will resemble military vicariates, which are separate from ordinary diocesan structures.
This move will enable Anglican converts to maintain their own history, culture, and (to an unspecified degree) liturgical rites in full communion with the Catholic church – like the uniate churches of the Eastern Rite.
According to the Times of London and the Tablet, approximately 50 Anglican bishops and as many as 500,000 individuals are seeking such admission, and this initiative responds to their need.
What is driving these conversions, and the Vatican response?
Two issues:
- Opposition to the recognition of gay relationships by the Anglican Church; and
- The ordination of women priests and, particularly, bishops.
Informed commentators see Pope Benedict as reaching out to the most fervent of like-minded (i.e. conservative) believers, in an effort to build a creative minority in an increasingly secular Europe.
Also, his over-riding concern for unity with the Eastern Rite churches may be a factor. This model of unity in diversity would apply in their case as well, and they support the conservative values being protected and encouraged by the initiative.
**
The implications.
Some would see this move as a future wedge that may weaken the western church’s insistence on clerical celibacy (both David Gibson in the New York Times and the Economist take that view).
Some initial reaction (including a Globe and Mail editorial) saw it as a blow to ecumenical dialogue. I’m not so sure about that – although Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, was reportedly informed of the development only at the last minute, and the Vatican officials responsible for ecumenical dialogue were notably absent from the talks and the announcements.
But the deepest implications must be for the nature and public face of a church that, despite everything, we love and to which we belong.
As M. Cathleen Kaveny of the University of Notre Dame noted on October 21 in the New York Times:
“At least in the American context, it can seem that the attraction of some Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church is largely negative. Rome doesn’t ordain women and Rome doesn’t ordain practicing homosexuals.
“As Pope Benedict XVI himself recognized, however, the church is in danger of becoming known for what it opposes, rather than the ‘good news’ it offers to humanity. No negative norm, however important (or controversial) can be the whole story. What do we stand for? What does the message of Jesus Christ offer? Unless we are all careful, this development will further entrench the image of Catholicism as the Church of ‘No.’
And there we have it: not the church of the poor and oppressed, the church of justice, the church of environmental stewardship, the church of liberation and joy and peace – but the church of ‘No’.
**
And so to the personal. What does it mean to me, and to other gay Catholics?
It confirms that our church remains, when you unpack the carefully nuanced phrases, officially and determinedly, homophobic.
At the local level where we all live, has anything really changed?
Not in my privileged western environment, where we enjoy all the protections of a twenty-first century civil society. For example, this week I was part of two gatherings of faithful Catholics – prayerful, supportive, communitarian events. I feel accepted, loved, and respected, and fully engaged in both groups, as a gay man.
But I have no illusions about this. If it weren’t for the civil progress gays have made over the past generation, these local church communities would not be so accepting. Gay people in less favored environments are not so lucky, and must count the church itself among those who oppose, rather than defend, their basic rights. And those less favored environments are where most of the world’s 10 million gay Catholics live.
What are we doing for them? What is the church doing for them?
That’s the question – and I don’t have an answer.
TerenceWeldon
Oct 25th, 2009
Jeremiah, my initial response to this was like yours – I don’t know. But as I think a little more, I am starting to grope towards at least a general approach, if not anything too specific.
More and more I am becoming convinced that we will not make progress on homosexual issues in the church until we also make progress on all the other issues of sexuality and gender – the suppression of women, clerical celibacy, contraception and others.
This will mean forming alliances with other groups in the church.
Thinking of Africa, it is important to recognise that the Africans themselves have a deep suspicion of anything that smacks of colonialism. Insisting on gay rights can easily be seen as imposing decadent Western customs, even though it is not true that traditional societies were free of the “evil”.
It is pointless to expect the church in Africa to speak up fro gay rights until they can make some progress in that regard themselves. To do that, I think we need to do what we can to help the Africans make some progress on their own concerns. We should be paying close attention to the African synod and their concerns. We could also support African women religious in their calls for greater respect and authority, and African clergy in their desire for a married clergy, a desire which is probably much stronger than in Europe or North America.
These are long term strategies. On more direct actions for the immediate problems in countries like Zimbabwe, Uganda and Nigeria, I fear we must look not to the Church, but to secular methods – or prayer for direct intervention by the Lord .
terry
Jan 10th, 2010
I would suggest you do have the answer and not willing to take the action needed.
What part of the Roman church do you really believe is going to change?
Shortly after this open call to the anti gay church, they started considering looking in space for evidence of “life”.
The Roman church is not looking to help you, but is now willing to look in outer space, how many years did it take the Romans to apologize to Galileo?
Is that not the evidence you need? Martians aka little green men, are more important than your plight.
What is wrong with “leaving” Jesus had no problem turning over the tables in protest.. why won’t you stand up and turn over the tables.
People say “god can move mountains but bring a shovel”
A cry for help is not going to fall on the deaf ear’s in Rome. Rome is trying to move the hands of time backwards not forward. And while you are a part of that machine by being “there” in it.
But I don’t understand “gay republicans” either. They must “think” they can change it from the inside, but what I see happening, is they get “bought off”.
I’m on your side.. this said from a man that never gave a moments care on this issue, I left my church home over this issue, I am not gay, but cannot and will not sit idle when “the church” supposedly the “body of Christ” supports hate.
If the table is not open to all, its not open. I believe the pre Easter Jesus made it very clear, he attended the disenfranchised, the poor, and helpless.
Since I do not consider gay as “sin” or “sick” or “illness”, I see no need for Jesus on this issue other than pointing out he was a fighter. I fight bigotry daily in the city I live in, not for me, I do this for my family and you, if either of my daughters are “gay” then, do you not think I would fight for their rights they still very young, 6 and 11, they need to be protected from the prejudice and bigotry, if I have no skin in the game and can do this.. I must ask.. why are you not fighting mad?
I don’t buy the crap, “the bible is silent” on this issue which is often the hiding place of the Romans. And guess what.. its always going to be, since its not a singing telegram.
You are up against a money machine, run by men. it is a business, they control. Harsh words, but honesty is a principle that can afford to be hidden under a table.
Think of this, the Pope, is in charge of 1.2 billion people, the world’s population is 6.6.
That my friend is a huge influence. Scary thought when you see your percentage of 10 million.. not even a spec.. in the big picture.
Raise Jesus , and protest.. turn over the money changers tables.. if you really want to help your brothers and sisters.. raise Jesus.
He was a famous political advocate in his short life. Emulate that.. not the lost lamb.