The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, spiritual head of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, is back in the news with regards to the ongoing controversy around the ordination of homosexuals.
He is now on record as supporting the idea of appointing openly homosexual individuals to being bishops. The issue has created deep divisions within the Anglican Communion, dating back to 2003 when the New Hampshire diocese elected an openly gay man as their bishop. New Hampshire’s bishop Gene Robinson is currently the only openly gay person serving as a bishop within the Communion.
However, in what could be seen as a rather typical Anglican tactic, namely not taking a firm stance on either side of an issue but coming up firmly in the middle, Archbishop Williams has also stated that while he supports the ordination of homosexual bishops, he does so with the understanding that such bishops remain, or become, celibate. This is a double standard.
Anglican priests, and therefore bishops and archbishops, are not required to be celibate such as they are, for instance, in the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, Williams himself is married, as are many Anglican clergy. To insist any homosexual who wishes to become a priest, let alone someday be appointed a bishop, must be celibate is hypocritical.
Williams recently stated in a London Times interview that he had “no problem” with consecrating an openly gay bishop. Whether or not by ‘gay’ he also meant ‘lesbian’ is unclear. Certainly the Anglican Church accepts women as clergy but, to date, I am not aware of any woman bishop. However, he went on to say he would not endorse gay clergy in “active relationships”.
“To put it very simply, there’s no problem about a gay person who’s a bishop,” he said. “It’s about the fact that there are traditionally, historically, standards that the clergy are expected to observe.”
What those might be was not exactly clear.
Certainly, it could be argued, it would be inappropriate for an openly gay bishop not involved in a committed monogamous relationship, and who was sexually active, to be a bishop. Not that I have an issue with anyone who chooses to be sexually active with as many individuals as they wish. I see no ethical issue there and I actually don’t really see any moral one either, although, again, it could be argued to have a series of superficial sexual encounters with little or no consideration for the individual, his feelings, or emotional health is a moral issue. Yes, up to a certain point I could cede that, although in my view if two individuals are both “on the same page” when it comes to recreational, casual sex and both approach it in a healthy manner and there is some respect for each other, I do not see an issue.
However, having said that, I suppose I can also cede that for a bishop to be cruising the baths, for instance, or carousing at gay night clubs every weekend probably is not terribly “on.” But that is not what Bishop Williams is talking about.
What he is saying is, if Candidate X is in a same-sex relationship or even married - as he well could be in Canada where we have equal marriage - he can forget about being made a bishop. Such restrictions apply to your local parish priest, as well.
Williams did take considerable pains during the interview to try and explain why he stands with conservatives within the Communion against gay clergy when it comes to doctrine.
He explained he, as Archbishop, had to decide against endorsing same-sex relationships for gay clergy and bishops because, he tried to explain, “the cost to the Church overall was too great to be borne at this point.”
Ahhh...so the good Archbishop is willing to sacrifice what is honourable and fair on the altar of expediency. That the whole “gay issue” has been a major thorn in the side of the Anglican Communion is obvious. Conservative, one might even say right wing, Asian and African bishops have for some years now threatened to split the Church over this issue and have interfered in the internal workings of dioceses, most notably the Diocese of New Westminster, who take a somewhat more liberal approach.
Pro-gay campaigners have accused Williams of being inconsistent. Williams had previously blocked the appointment of a celibate but openly gay cleric as bishop. There may be some truth to the accusation; how can Williams now claim he has “no problem” appointing a gay man to the bishopric so long as the candidate is and, one assumes remains, celibate - yet within memory, actively blocked just such an appointment? Has Williams had a change of heart? He doesn’t say.
If he has, that’s all well and good. People can and do change their positions on issues after some reflection or upon receiving new information. If that is the case, and it may well be the case, then Williams needs to acknowledge that.
But this is all rather beside the point. The point here is that there is a separate but equal mentality at work that is just not an ethical position at all. It didn’t work during Apartheid, it was dismissed as being in any way viable during our own equal marriage debates, when it was often suggested by those opposed to same-sex marriage that gay men and lesbians should settle for civil union and not seek marriage, and it is not viable here either.
What if the Worldwide Anglican Communion, which is based on consensus and does not utilize a top-down style of governance, were to somehow decide all clergy were to be celibate, just as their brothers in the Roman Catholic Church are required to be. While that would create one hell of a backlash and some major - and I am talking major - controversy, at least it would be an equal playing field; a field where sexual orientation just was not an issue, really. That is not the case. Here the case is one set of rules and expectations for this clergy and another set of rules and expectations for that clergy. How anyone in their right mind, let alone an individual tasked with being fair and reasonable as a mediator, could possibly see it as any sort of solution is beyond me. Well, it is a solution of sorts....for Williams. It allows him to play both sides of the fence and not overly offend, he hoped, either side. Surprise!
Peter Tatchell, the well-known British gay activist, has been quoted as saying “Yet again, Rowan is sitting on the fence regarding gay clergy...I don’t know how he sleeps at night.”
I suppose if one is convinced of one’s own righteousness and that because one holds a particular office, say that of Archbishop, then it is quite easy to dismiss any opposition as that of uninformed rabble-rousers. I am sure, or would at least hope, Williams has meditated on this issue and given it considerable thought. That he is a man of intellect goes without saying. He may even be a compassionate man. But on this question, the logic is faulty, the compassion minimal, and he’s playing the politician.
If a particular cleric chooses to be celibate, that is up to the individual. It is possible to be openly gay and celibate, and if a priest or bishop chose that route then I would say more power to him, and would support him in that decision. But to have it imposed when it is not required of other clergy is, as I’ve mentioned already, hypocritical and a double standard. It is shameful and shame on Rowan Williams for doing so. 