The controversy that won't go away
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The recent decision of the Vatican to establish a special diocese in the United States for Episcopal converts to Catholicism has re-opened discussion on several old points of contention. Among them is the decisions of the Catholic Church to allow married Anglican and Episcopal priests to be ordained on an individual basis in 1980, and the more recent allowance for entire Episcopal parishes to convert en masse in 2009.The decisions to allow married Anglican and Episcopal priests to convert along with their parishes and subsequently be re-ordained as Catholic priests are not attempts to “steal sheep,” according to the Catholic Church. Rather, they are a munificent response to a growing sentiment in the Anglo-Catholic portion of the Episcopal community that their denomination is headed in the wrong direction — that is, in the liberal Episcopal acceptance of female and openly gay priests and recognition of gay marriage. Although the exception being made for priestly celibacy is an impermanent one designed to ensure a smooth transition of Anglo-Catholics into the Catholic Church, to outside observers such as myself, it comes across as painfully unfair to celibate Catholic priests and as evidence of several blatant double standards at work.The Vatican has been allowing parish and group conversions since 2009 as a reply to the desire expressed by many leaders of the Anglo-Catholic branch — the more conservative branch of the American Episcopalian Church — to return to their home in the Catholic Church after a centuries-long hiatus. The Anglican Church broke from the Vatican in the 16th century. Although the most obvious explanation for Anglo-Catholic leaders’ desire to convert is their disapproval of the exceedingly liberal direction the Episcopal Church is headed in, there is a theological explanation, as well. Anglo-Catholic/Episcopal leaders want to officially maintain the historically Catholic theological traditions — specifically, the belief that only celibate, male priests are eligible to perform communion. This tradition harkens back to the 12th century, when the Catholic Church mandated priestly celibacy as a means of protecting the sanctity of the body of Christ in the communion ceremony. Both women and non-celibate men were considered unfit to perform communion, the former because they were believed to embody lustful desire and the latter because they were associated with such desire; it was a matter of theological purity. Hence, Catholic priests since the 12th century have been unmarried men — that is, until 1980. Why should married Anglican and Episcopal priests be permitted to be ordained as Catholic priests? The Vatican claims it is allowing such priests to work within a framework that practices a tradition that is dear to them — purity and fullness of communion. And yet, in its allowance of married priests, it is breaking this very tradition. If married priests are allowed “for a limited time only,” then female priests should be, as well.In allowing married Anglo-Catholic priests to be re-ordained as Catholic priests, the Vatican is engaging in serious hypocrisy, reinforcing age-old discrimination and its own highly selective version of what is acceptable at the pulpit. However, Pope Benedict has now decided that married men are acceptable, as well. Individual Catholics assert that it’s a matter of tradition, not a matter of discrimination, but individuals are not institutions. Any individual Catholic can — and plenty of individual Catholics do — question the Church’s refusal to allow female clerical leadership. What we’re running into here is institutional, not individual, discrimination justified through a long-standing historical tradition. The crux of the issue is this: How far can tradition go in legitimizing discriminatory practices? The views and ideas of some individual Catholics have drastically changed during the past 10 centuries. If a tradition itself is based on historical discriminations such as the Vatican’s prohibition of female clergy, then a serious reassessment of that tradition needs to occur. - cleahy@indiana.edu