Just say No to equality
The Church of England comes right out and admits it – it is opposed to equality. It’s politely regretful – or to put it another way, it politely pretends to be regretful. But when a choice has to be made, it chooses the principle of male authority, and that’s that. It would like to be all liberal and modern and right-on and all, but when the stakes are this high, it just can’t do it. So sorry.
The Christian Churches, alongside many other faiths, support the Equality Bill’s wider aims in promoting fairness in society and improving redress for those who have suffered unjust treatment.
Except for we don’t. We say we do – but then when we’re actually expected to act on it – we don’t. We wish we could – we would so love to – we wish you all the very best – but we don’t. So, so sorry.
I ran across a short essay by a Catholic theologian in Der Spiegel (52/1992 p84-85) almost 2 decades ago. Fr. Norbert Greinacher claimed Jesus went far out of his way to avoid a male-dominated ministry.
In a rough translation by me, here are his concluding remarks:
“It was the fate of the first century that all of the anti-woman traditions of Judaism, Greek philosophy, and eastern Gnosticism were bundled into the early Christian concept of the God-ordained inferiority of women.”
“In view of the examples of Jesus and of the primitive church, the stubbornness of the leadership of the Catholic Church regarding the comprehensive equalization of women is a scandal.”
This reminds me of a Catholic commenter on my blog who claimed that the church would like to ordain women, but they just don’t have the power, so sad, such a shame. They seem to think it excuses their bigotry if they externalize it and claim it’s something imposed on them, rather than their own choice as it manifestly is.
They just don’t want to share their fancy frocks, do they? Not to mention all that lovely cake.
Well, I gave my fancy frocks away to a woman who was being ordained. But this whole equality thing is, to my mind, just another side to the problem of evil. As Michael points out, lots of catholics say, with a kind of smug satisfaction, that, well, they’d love to do it, but they can’t. God won’t allow it. The whole thing is a put up job. God won’t allow the ordination of women, or the acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships, in just the same way that, while we can’t understand why, God doesn’t prevent some of the monstrous evils that occur. It’s all very opaque, but we can be sure, since it’s God, after all, that it’s all for the best. It’s got to be, of course, because if the plan isn’t perfect, then neither is God God. So, we just have to accept these things, blindly trusting in God’s love and justice. We need to have the self-assured sang froid that is displayed on the C of E website. Look further on their site and you’ll see that they think that it’s just fine to let people die in agony, because, well, just think, there’s a noble lady in the House of Lords in a wheelchair, and she’s worried that if we let someone choose to die without pain, they’ll give her a deadly injection right there in the Lord’s chambers without so much as a by your leave. And, in any event, it’ll all be made clear in the end, so what’s the big fuss? Even those, like us, who think we stand for justice, will find out just how wrong we were. Then we will know just why these inequities are not only permitted but commanded…. You know the routine. And of course it’s all a GREAT BIG LIE.
Yes. I just read a sampling of loathsome apologetics in reply to the James Wood piece, at Jerry Coyne’s place. The stuff is maddening.
“God is deeply present in and through the events of the world — often inscrutably, but always powerfully and lovingly.”
That’s from a professor at the Harvard divinity school. Churchy talk dressing up horrors – ‘deeply,’ ‘in and through,’ ‘inscrutably,’ ‘powerfully and lovingly.’ It’s as if the Mafia delivered all its threats in a Valentine card.
Ob,
Quite.
‘And what reasons do you give for being excused from following the law of the land?’
‘Deep and inscrutable ones.’
‘Fair enough.’
From OB’s link:
“‘When regulations on employment discrimination were passed as recently as 2003, churches and other faiths were granted certain limited exemptions by parliament to be used when recruiting ministers of religion or others to a small number of lay posts. These enabled religious organisations to apply requirements that candidates for certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion are able to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion, as well as sharing the faith…
‘We must conclude therefore that the only way to maintain the status quo in exemptions for religious organisations is for Peers to support amendments 98, 99 and 100 on Monday, tabled by Baroness O’Cathain and the Bishop of Winchester, over and above the Governnment’s compromise amendment 99A.’”
In other words, we have to be able to sack someone who turns out to represent our faith in ways other than we (ahem) expected.
Yes well, shit happens.
And Baroness O’Cathain, the Bishop of Winchester and the rest of that unholy and unelected feudal hangover known as the House of Lords will continue to force privilege down the necks of the populace of Britain till kingdom come.
Ah well. Shit happens.