Bishops' wars

Assuming Parliament approves the measure passed by the synod of the Church of England yesterday, a female Anglican bishop should be appointed some time next summer at the end of a battle that has taken up almost half the twenty years since the first women were ordained. I wonder which Prime Minister will chose her, the nominal Anglican David Cameron or the Jewish atheist Ed Miliband?

The Church of England must surely be the only religious institution in the world whose leaders are picked by people who aren't themselves members of it, like the last Prime Minister, the Scottish Presbyterian Gordon Brown. Margaret Thatcher – a Nonconformist turned Anglican – was apparently the most interventionist Prime Minister in episcopal matters, once rejecting both names on the shortlist sent to her by the Church, while Winston Churchill was so uninterested that he let his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the Irish Catholic Brendan Bracken, pick them for him.

Separate but equal?

In the House of Commons debate on same-sex marriage yesterday, one of the arguments used by Tory MP's opposed to its introduction was that gay couples could already have a civil partnership so there was no need to extend the right to marry to them.

David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, responded by saying their position was the same as racists in the American South in the fifties who claimed that segregated schools, housing, hotels etc. didn't mean black people were being discriminated against because they were "separate but equal". That clearly wasn't the case but even if it had been segregation would still have been something to be opposed on principle. So how does the same-sex marriage legislation measure up to that test?

 

The Bill MP's voted for last night bars gay couples from getting married in the Church of England and continues to exclude straight couples from a civil partnership. If I were a MP, I'd have voted for the Bill as a step towards equality but I'd also have put foward amendments removing the remaining barriers to it.

Gay marriage: a simple solution

The Archbishop of York has added his voice to that of the Catholic hierarchy in opposing gay marriage. In an article in The Guardian, John Sentamu argues - without really saying why - that allowing gay marriage would undermine marriages between men and women. The Catholic Church has been circulating petitions against gay marriage at Masses and in its secondary schools.

Unlike in America, Britain does not have a large body of religious people opposed to gay marriage - most Catholics are not whatever their Church says and circulating petitions against it in schools had led to protests by Catholic teenagers. What the resistance to gay marriage by the Catholic Church and Church of England really signifies is a "long, withdrawing roar" of people who know they no longer have the grip on society they once did.

The root of the issue in England is the intertwining of religious and civil marriage with Anglican vicars, Catholic priests and other ministers conducting ceremonies that combine the two. The answer is to separate them, as happens in many (religious) countries like France and Egypt so people can choose to have a civil marriage, a religious one or both. Everyone could have a civil marriage and it would be up to religious who could have a religious one, with the more enlightened Christians like the Quakers and Unitarians presumably marrying any couple, as they already do with civil parterships.

Separating civil and religious marriage would also probably also involve disestablishing the Church of England, a big step towards a secular society which would also allow Anglicans rather than politicians to control their church.

The Cardinal and slavery

I'm not sure whether Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, took any PR advice before writing an article comparing homosexuality to slavery. If he did, he probably ignored it given his track record of publicity seeking.

The Catholic Church regards homosexuality as a grave sin, presumably extending a person's stay in Purgatory almost indefintely. Catholic peers led the opposition in the House of Lords to legislation allowing churches to celebrate civil partnerships if they want to. So far, only nice, liberal Christians like the Quakers and Unitarians have taken up the offer.  The Church of England unsurprsingly can't make its mind up. Having a less centralised structure than the Catholic Church (although it's hard to see how it could have a more centralised one) it will probably leave the decision to individual vicars. The Church of England would also have probably avoided using the term "slavery" given its relatively recent history of slave-owning.

O'Brien sees civil partnerships as a form of slavery which is no less morally harmful because those who enter them do so by choice, unlike the millions of Africans shipped across the Atlantic. The interesting question is by what right O'Brien and his fellow cardinals think they have the right to police the morals of those outside the Catholic Church, especially when they now police those inside the Church pretty loosely, turning a blind eyes to their communicants taking advantages of scientific advances like contraception and IVF that they similarly rallied against as immoral when they were introduced. 

If O'Brien wanted to make a moral statement against slavery, he could of course have spoken out against this.

Cameron attacks a straw man

David Cameron's speech on the four hundredth anniversary of the King James Bible declaring that "we are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so" and decrying people who "argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths" is a case of attacking a position that no one holds.  Tory ex-Cabinet minister Michael Portillo also weighed in with "We all know the classic cases of political correctness that you are not allowed to mention Christmas, and cards that you send out at this time of the year must not mention Christmas and things like this."

Cameron seems to be saying that the English language, architecture, art, history, literature and music have all been influenced by Chrisitianity. But who has ever denied that?  Portillo's remarks are even more lame-brained.  If "we all know" that you can't mention Christmas or send Christmas cards any more, he won't have any trouble reeling off a list of people he knows who object to the mention of Christmas or to people sending cards.

I also find it amusing that the Church of England is now reduced to being defended by a self-proclaimed "wishy-washy" Anglican PM who has said that his faith comes and goes like the radio reception in the Chilterns and a lapsed Catholic atheist.

Moneylenders throwing people out of the cathedral

It seems that the Church of England is joining the City bankers in their legal action to forcibly remove the Occupy London protestors camped outside St Paul's Cathedral.

Although a couple of radical clerics have resigned over the decision, let's not forget that the CofE is not only a large landowner - of shopping centres as well as cathedrals - but also has extensive interests in banking as well. It even charges people to visit cathedrals (people who pitch up at St Paul's claiming to be there for religious rather than touristy reasons are apparently diverted into a small side chapel to pray).

The Church of England isn't exactly awash with young people, especially those with a belief in social justice that is (as yet) as vague and unfocussed as its own.  You'd think the bishops would be throwing open the doors of the cathedral and welcoming the protestors with open arms.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Matthew ch 19, v 24