Andrew thinks the Pope's merger talks with anti-gay Anglicans are "almost baldly political." I'd go with "dangerous."
First, this takes the Vatican's prior acceptance of married clergy from other denominations one giant step further then the church has ever gone; the Pope is actively recruiting now. I'm not sure how he'll deal with any Anglican female clergy members, though I'm not clear how many ultra-conservative Anglicans would have gone down that road. But setting that aside, this new welcome mat to a denomination that has never had a rule requiring celibate clergy exposes the church's fundamental cynicism on this archaic and harmful doctrine.
But the most interesting question for me is whether these hybrid Catholics will be more or less observant of rules like the contraception ban -- even for married couples -- than existing Catholics are. This is where the moral rubber meets the road. If the Vatican really means it when it says sex that is not open to procreation is a sin, even within heterosexual marriage, actively opening the church to denominations that aren't so morally punctilious seems to be an admission that the principle, if not the Pope, has no clothes. Does he expect Anglicans to give up contraception?
No one could reasonably think that. Even Catholics don't follow this absurd urging from the unmarried clergy. This is about -- it is only about -- filling the ranks with more explicitly homophobic members. Conservative Anglicans have lived with both married and female clergy for decades now. They have lived with reproductive choice, and never even had to think about a ban on contraception. It is gay equality that they cannot accept.
The Vatican is certainly welcome to these new believers, if that's what they can be called. But like the Republican party before it, the church will soon learn how hard it is to deal with people you are encouraging to exercise, and take pride in, their unchecked prejudice.
8 Comments for “Pope Ratzinger: Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Homophobes”
posted by amy on
That is a bold move but beware of the Catholic Church. I used to be Catholic but then I stopped practicing after I found out some disturbing truth. Some say the papacy is the antichrist. They changed the ten commandments which is the Law of God, the Pope claims to be a god, they have killed innocent people for centuries like the Spanish Inquisition and supporting the Nazis, and the priests have molested a lot of children. Jesus would not approve of any of these, it is not Christian, that is evil hiding behind religion. People really need to open their eyes. I know I did!!!
posted by jpeckjr on
Married clergy from non-Catholic traditions have been allowed to become Catholic and remain clergy for some time. I mean, a church that forbids divorce could hardly make a clergy man from another tradition divorce to become celibate without making everyone’s head explode.
The main difference I see in this new policy is that it will allow whole congregations, possibly even entire dioceses to leave the Anglican Communion and come into the Roman Catholic Church. They would be part of a “non-geographic” province, possibly with its own bishop, analogous to the way the RC Church deals with the armed services. That is a major departure from the previous “one-at-a-time” policy.
I’m a liberal Protestant clergyperson and I’ll add this: dissidents in one church often become dissidents in another church. When someone joins my church because they were “dissatisfied” with their former church, I stay cautious about them for a very long time.
posted by bls on
How he’ll deal with female clergy members? They aren’t clergy members, to him; women aren’t “proper matter” for ordination. They are laypeople, now and forever; there’s nothing to “deal with.”
Of course, Anglican clergy aren’t clergy, either, according to the Catholic Church; they will have to be (re-)ordained.
It’s really all very sick, in fact. Anglican clergy who hate gay people so much that they’re willing to concede openly that every Eucharist they’ve ever celebrated was invalid.
posted by jpeckjr on
There will be no female clergy to deal with among the dissident Anglicans. Objection to female clergy is one of their dissents. Conservative Anglicans may have lived with female clergy for some time now, but they never approved of it.
posted by sdsa on
http://gaymac.blogspot.com/
posted by Jorge on
I think it’s extremely disingenous for you to take the surprising fact that the Vatican is being lenient with the married clergy issue, and then propose the most ulterior explanation you can find.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
posted by Hal Meis on
Not too long ago another event took place that speaks to the “agenda” of the Vatican. In a recent “letter of comment” to Commonweal Magazine, a Sister X, a longstanding nun, wrote to share her thoughts regarding a recent action of the Vatican. A committee of Vatican designees will be venturing to America to conduct a “visitation” to assess the “quality of life” of American sisters ( nuns). It seems that the Leadership Conference of Women Religious are needing to be evaluated as to their worthiness of mission as far as the Church goes. I find it an interesting set of events. “Evidently, the Vatican is concerned that the LCWR has not been forthcoming about the magisterium?s teachings regarding the ordination of women, the relation of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions, and the ?intrinsically disordered? nature of homosexual acts.” The article written incognito dor discretion’s sake is interesting reading that supplements this particular comment. It simply reinforces what we have already known about The Vatican’s stance on homosexuality but also provides a duality of issues.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2658
posted by jim on
Men and women who value freedom should stand and cheer the Pope. The message he sent to progressives was heard loud and clear, you will not be allowed to undermine people’s faith. I would urge the gay community to sever all ties with progressives and their unholy agenda. Progressives are primarily the ones setting the hateful tone in every area of life. They use vulnerable people and causes to push their agenda. Anglicans need to ask, is this what I wanted for our church? I would guess that you have been highjacked under the guise of tolerance. I am a very simple person asking myself why would anyone ask others to drop their values and belief’s in order to make a few feel better. Would it be healthier to start one’s own church and thus fellowship with like minded people? The only answer that makes sense to me is the progressives desire to undermine God in people’s life so that people will turn to them for guidance. The progressives have achieved their actual goal on this issue, not inclusion but the destruction of a spiritual house. Remember the warning about wolves in sheep’s clothing.