I awoke this morning to BBC Radio 4’s Today program and the news bulletin at 7am. Surprisingly, two religious stories topped the news. His Grace, the Most Rev’d and Rt. Hon Rowan Douglas Williams, by the Grace of God Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England, Instrument of Unity in the Anglican Communion, Twit Extraordinaire (I made that last one up) has said on a show to be broadcast on Monday that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has “lost all credibility” as a result of the sexual abuse scandal.
I see.
The second story concerned the Vatican’s response to the scandal.
I would not be so crafty as to observe that, after the Pope’s sticking two fingers up at the Anglican Communion and Church of England by announcing that disaffected Anglicans (the woman-haters, closeted gay clergy, sanctuary rats, and all) would be allowed to become Roman Catholics under an Anglican Ordinariate, His Grace is ramming his crozier where the Pope’s sun doesn’t shine. However, while there is merit in what Williams says, there is also merit in letting the Romans stew in their own juices rather than lighting a warmer fire under the pot.
First, the Anglican Communion and its constituent provinces are not blameless in the matter of child sexual abuse. One diocese in the Anglican Church of Canada was forced to dissolve in the face of the financial burden laid upon it by abuse meted out in schools for First Nations children. The national financial settlement that stems from those schools has bitten off a large part of the finances of Canada’s Anglicans. In England, the abusive clerical headmaster of old is hardly blameless in these matters. Every C of E diocese has its cases in the past. The Episcopal Church also has cases of the same kind, and a currently-serving bishop is appealing a sentence of deposition for covering up abuse committed years ago by his brother, also a cleric. None of this excuses any abuse: whether it be Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Evangelical (all those American televangelists caught with their pants down), Jewish, Moslem, or atheist abuse, all denominations have past and future responsibility for these actions and for any subsequent cover-up.
Second, outside of the matter of sexual abuse, Williams has lost a lot of his own credibility lately for many reasons. He warned the Episcopal Church against electing a lesbian or gay bishop. When the Rev’d Canon Mary Glasspool, an out lesbian, was elected Suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles, Williams warned the Episcopal Church not to go against the bonds of “gracious restraint” and confirm her election. When the Episcopal Church confirmed her election, he shook his head sadly and said in effect “No good shall come of this.” The Episcopal Church, for one, has found that Williams may huff and puff, but he is unable to blow their Church down. The proposed Anglican Covenant is now dead, mainly through the actions of the Episcopal Church in this matter. Even the Church of England General Synod is unlikely to ratify the Covenant, as much as Williams will push for it. Without the participation of the Anglican Communion’s wealthiest member, the Episcopal Church, the Covenant is lost.
Williams is an opaque speaker and thinker. He has found the time to write several books during his time as Archbishop, and often pronounces on issues of the day. His pronouncements, however, are couched in theological God-speak that is impenetrable by the person on the Clapham omnibus (ie, Everyperson). He has taken positions on social issues such as same-sex civil partnerships that are at odds with even those taken by the Conservative Party (which used to be the C of E at prayer). People perceive Williams and the Church of England in general as out-of-touch and remote from the opinions of the mainstream of society.
And so it goes. Credibility is the loser in all this. The only good that has come out of this whole sad story of abuse by clerics and church workers of any denomination is that cases that occur now are meant to promptly be handed over to the civil arm for justice and the offender barred from ministry or church work.
Oh, and as for celibacy (or, more accurately, chastity within the unmarried state) causing such abuse or attracting abusers as a cover for their activities, don’t believe it. Non-celibate clergy and layworkers commit abuse too. I do not believe that celibacy is required for priesthood, of course, but marriage would not have stopped a lot of this abuse by Roman Catholic priests, nuns, and brothers. The causes lie much deeper than just the desire for sex and allowing marriage for RC priests would not have obviated most of those causes in these people.