In another era or church setup, Archbishop Henry Orombi would be in deep trouble. The Anglican Archbishop of Uganda last week singled out his boss, Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, for some roasting over the crisis in the Anglican Communion.
Williams, he said, is ultimately responsible for the schism in the Communion. He flouted recommendations of the church's primates dealing with American Episcopalians who had ordained an active homosexual as a bishop in 2003. American and a few other dioceses have since then gone ahead to approve rites for blessing of same-sex unions. Yet Williams invited them to this year's Lambeth Conference, provoking a boycott by a quarter of the world's bishops.
Archbishop Orombi did not stop there. He turned on the position of head of the Anglican Communion itself, saying it was a "peculiar thing" that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not even elected by his peers, like the pope.
"Over the past five years, we have come to see this as a remnant of British colonialism, and it is not serving us well. The spiritual leadership of a global Communion of independent and autonomous provinces should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government."
Archbishop Williams did not fly into a rage, but measured his words. "Archbishop Orombi isn't the first person who has used this language of colonial relics about the Canterbury relationship. I think it's a misunderstanding really. It would be fair only if Canterbury governed. Now, I don't govern the Communion."
This exchange is a powerful defense of the fundamental human freedoms of thought and speech within the church. In Anglican ecclesiology, the church is one, but it is a communion of a variety of communities which, nonetheless, live together tolerantly. It is a unity derived from diversity, not from rigid conformity. Archbishop Williams called it the great gift of "our capacity to bear with one another patiently".
That unity in Christ is broken not when we simply disagree but when we stop being able to see the sincerity of the other's conviction, the archbishop said. "A fellow Christian may believe they have a profound fresh insight. They seek to persuade others about it. A healthy church gives space for such exchanges."
In the modern world, the same standard applies when dealing with those who totally and radically disagree with our beliefs. The recent campaign by an American biology professor against the Catholic Eucharist is illustrative. Prof Paul Myers of the University of Minnesota invited people through his blog to send him consecrated Hosts, which he desecrated.
In another historical period, one imagines some church officials and the faithful driven by 'holy' anger condemning the professor in the strongest terms possible, calling public prayers for his soul, organizing city and village demonstrations to baptize his effigy, or even demanding his sacking, arrest and prosecution.
But the Catholic Church in the US was generally silent on Prof Myers. He was after all entitled to his views on the Eucharist or on any other subject under the sun. It was his right to express those views, even in a manner considered sacrilegious and extremely offensive by every Catholic.
The US church demonstrated its commitment to the freedoms of belief, thought and speech in a democratic society. Archbishop Orombi's exchange with the Archbishop of Canterbury illustrates that these freedoms cannot be defined differently within the church.
[*Mr Makori is the Editor of CISA]
Comments 1 to 2 of 2 Post a comment
The author confuses legitimate diversity within the Anglican communion with heresy and blasphemy. The issue is not diversity but rather whether the Anglican communion will sit still for a large group of heretical bishops,mostly from the US and Canada, trying to rewrite 2000 years of Christian doctrine and impose it on the rest of the Church. He is trying to make an apple into an orange, and is not able to do so.
I am afraid that whoever is writing these press releases for Catholic Information Service for Africa is either very misinformed, or deliberately dishonest in his description of the "recent campaign by an American biology professor against the Catholic Eucharist".
This whole incident he names began when a student at the University of Central Florida left a Catholic mass taking an unconsumed Communion wafer with him. To say the response of the Church and the faithful was extreme would be an understatement. Not only was the student assaulted by one of the church leaders as he was leaving, but he received death threats from other Catholics, and the president of the US "Catholic League" wrote to the University demanding that the student be expelled. After such a campaign of intimidation, the student returned the wafer to the church.
Enter Professor P.Z. Myers of the University of Minnesota. Professor Myers has a long history of being critical of religion, superstition, spirituality and pseudoscience - which he refers to as "fundamentally dishonest". After reading about the University of Central Florida incident, he declared that the reaction of the Church officials and the faithful was absurd, saying, "Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane." He also vowed that he would happily desecrate one of their communion wafers if they really wanted something to complain about, since, as he put it, the wafer was just a "cracker" and no amount of ritual would ever change that. Just two days after referring to the communion wafer as a cracker Professor Myers had already received four death threats and 34 letters demanding he be sacked and this was before he had actually done anything other than talk!
Two weeks later, Professor Myers followed through on his promise, and once again, the reaction was virulent, vocal and threats of violence were included. The president of the US "Catholic League" first asked the government of the state of Minnesota to take action against Professor Myers for committing a "hate crime", when that effort bore no fruit he launched a media campaign demanding that Myers be sacked from his university. Professor Myers has also received many death threats from members of the Catholic faithful. One notable example read: well sir, you don't get to blaspheme and walk away from this. You have two choices my fucked up friend, first you can quit your job for the good of the children. Or you can get your brains beat in.
It is correct that no actual highly placed official of the Catholic church made any of these demands, but then they hardly needed to, as they had many followers who were already doing it for them.
For the writer of press releases for the Catholic Information Service for Africa to describe these events saying: "In another historical period, one imagines some church officials and the faithful driven by 'holy' anger condemning the professor in the strongest terms possible, calling public prayers for his soul, organizing city and village demonstrations to baptize his effigy, or even demanding his sacking, arrest and prosecution.
"But the Catholic Church in the US was generally silent on Prof Myers." Is therefore both ridiculous, and completely untrue.
If the writer believes this is the model of behavior that good Catholics SHOULD follow, then I commend him and wish he would go to work convincing the Catholic faithful in the United States generally, and the president of the US "Catholic League" in particular. But he should not be telling his African readers things which are simply false.