MetaCatholic

(This post is part of a series on the 39 articles of the Church of England)

Those who sometimes compare the 39 articles to a confession of faith overlook the practical and non-confessional nature of some like the thirty-second. This deals entirely with the non-credal topic of clergy marriage. It is also (at least nowadays) not an issue between the Roman Catholic and other Churches. The Vatican is quite clear that this is not a matter of divine Law, but of ecclesial discipline and tradition, that the Church can change as and when it chooses. In some ways, therefore, there is little to say about it. In other ways, however, it might be worth some reflection. Here is the text of the article.

XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests
Bishops, Priests and Deacons are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

This article was part of a move that re-emphasised the virtue of marriage. The marriage of clergy did a great deal practically and symbolically to insist it was not a second-best state of life, and undermined the superiority of celibacy, which seemed to be embedded in the tradition, especially the (not entirely misplaced) traditional interpretation of Paul. It also brought in its wake some unintended consequences, not least of which was the increasing binding of ministry to being a middle-class occupation, often domesticated and in many “clerical” families being made almost hereditary. The eschatological note that celibacy at its best represented was too easily overlooked. Clergy marriage almost certainly contributed to the Church of England’s loss of touch with the emerging working classes.

In today’s context the almost complete disappearance of celibacy among the clergy (and more widely) is a question the Church seems unable to address. It is hardly valuing celibacy to turn it into a compulsory option for a devalued caste of gay clergy, while vaunting the joys of marital sex for everyone else. Turning to it as the solution for homosexuality is not much more than binding heavy burdens for others to carry, unless it is also fully encouraged and promoted as a serious and valued vocation for straights also.

In a society which is, at least by most historical comparisons, heavily over-sexualised, perhaps the Church’s most distinctive stand against modern culture might be found in promoting celibacy as either a time-limited or permanent vow, among ordained and lay alike. As such, it witnesses to several strands of the gospel:

• our name and identity are guaranteed their future by God, not having children
• our most enduring relationship is one of love in God
• the fulfilment of all desire is the full and final vision of God

These are all positive strands in a society concerned about inheritance and property, troubled by swathes of broken relationships, and seeking the instant gratification of desire. Affirming these does not mean we cannot also affirm the many blessings of marriage (and rather less grudgingly than Cranmer’s marriage service, which notoriously presents it as an option for those “who have not the gift of continency” and “to avoid fornication”). But it does mean we should stop talking about marriage as a blessing by which God affirms “normal” people, and celibacy as a prison sentence for queers. Talking up, as many now do, the blessing and enjoyment of straight sex – even inventive straight sex – and the importance of focussing on the family, is itself a partial capitulation to contemporary culture. Arguably it is more of a capitulation than gay and lesbian couples seeking to affirm life-long fidelity (in sacramental imitation of God’s fidelity) in a culture where promiscuity and serial monogamy are increasingly the norm.

What is a clear to me is that the Church of England has forgotten how to value celibacy, and trotting it out as “the gay vocation” is an insult both to gay people and to the celibate call. A positive affirmation of it as a call – perhaps even a call particularly congruent with ordained and apostolic ministry – will do far more in the end to offer a counter-cultural mission to our society, even if it will be less pleasing to our (monogamously challenged) African brothers and sisters than thunderous denunciations of gays. It might even offer a rather more pertinent counter-cultural gospel in their society too.