Stephen Colbert and why I am uncomfortable with full communion with the Roman Catholic Church

150909075125-late-show-colbert-0909-super-169Let me start by saying I adore Stephen Colbert. I really do. I watch the Late Show now, which I never did. My heart grows 2 sizes when he says, “Nation…”, even though I am Canadian. I also deeply admire his public statements of faith, and how he talks about his faith wherever he is because it is so ingrained in his life that it can’t help but be visible.

There. Have I disqualified myself as a Colbert hater?

On Sunday night (September 13, 2015) Witness on Salt + Light aired an interview with Stephen Colbert and Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB. It was clearly pre-Late Show airing because of the Santa beard. He does a beautiful piece around minute 6 about the difference between an idiot and a fool. He also quotes CS Lewis on humour.

One portion was posted on Sojourners under the headline Stephen Colbert, LIfelong Catholic, on Hearing a Female Priest Celebrate the Eucharist. In this particular portion, he describes a time when the Eucharist “was most real to me…a time I didn’t receive it.”. He describes a high Anglican mass celebrated by a woman where, for him, hearing the words of consecration from a female voice opened up yet another perspective through which to view the action of the Eucharist, that all of our bodies are included in the Body of Christ, and we all give our bodies to the Body as Christ gave His. The fact that it was a woman made it more obvious to him because the words were clearly being said by someone who he did not perceive as a priest.

I am an ecumenist, and I firmly believe that, when we come to the table, we can not respect difference if we are all trying to be the same. I grew up Baptist in a Baptist-Roman Catholic community. The rules for going to a Catholic church, according to my mother, were “When they stand, you stand, when they kneel, you sit, and when they go up for communion, YOU STAY PUT.” As an Anglican, I kneel now, and I go up to receive a blessing rather than staying put. I respect the boundaries as much as I am able.

When Stephen Colbert said, “someone I don’t perceive as a priest”, it hurt. I know it is true for him. I know why it is true for him. I can not be dogmatically academic about it. Being a priest and being a woman is who I am. It is who God created and called me to be. He is not, as some are saying, promoting woman priests, or even questioning the Roman Catholic doctrine on ordination and the place of women in the church. So, I feel it is important to point out, when someone like Stephen Colbert, such a witness of the social gospel, makes that distinction, because we are quick to align him with equality under Christ. And that is not where he is.

I respect that. We are separate churches. My husband’s family is Roman Catholic so sometimes, in my life, the two churches intersect, but otherwise, for most of us, they are two different expressions of the same faith in Christ.

The Anglican Communion around the world is in the midst of discerning the work of the Spirit around a few things. It causes conflict and, sometimes, it puts us out of joint with our ecumenical partners. Sometimes, when we make a controversial move, we receive a letter from one of our partners, including the Roman Catholic church, warning us that, if we proceed, it will damage our relationship and force the other to create more boundaries.

Now, first of all, these kinds of pre-emptive strikes are harmful to dialogue that is truly based in discernment of the movement of the Holy Spirit. As long as we are working things out, the role of our partners is to pray for us, offer us insight and then, when our decision is made, to enter into prayer about their relationship with us.

But every once in a while, when we get one of these pre-emptive strikes from the Roman Catholic Church, some of us respond with regret; “We are now further away from full communion with the Roman Catholic Church”. For many, the goal of our dialogue with Roman Catholics is to enter into a fullness of unity which includes the Eucharist. Because of the centrality of the Eucharist in Catholicism and Anglicanism, there are many doctrines we need to reconcile before that can happen. How do we do that when the Roman Catholic church denies the possibility of women presiding over the Eucharist? Do we then make women priests simply an addendum?

I can not not take that personally as an affront to the work that God is doing in and through me. Being a woman and being a priest are not separate beings. I realized this when I was first in discernment and I received an email from a dear friend who did not believe in the ordination of women. He wrote, “I do not doubt your call, but I can not find support for the ordination of women”. Until that moment, I didn’t think about how I would be a woman and a priest. I was just going to be a priest. But the logical disconnect of my friend’s words made me reconsider. I responded that he could not believe what he stated. He was either denying my womanhood or stating unequivocally that I was mistaken in my call because God simply does not call women to the ministry.


I am not going to use historic examples of discrimination to express the disconnect of full communion with a church that denies the ordination of women. Let me try a new one. Let’s take the Church of Cheetahs (CC), and the Church of Elephants and Cheetahs. These churches want to work more closely together. The CC invites the CEC into a deeper relationship that means working together in all things (full communion is a little more complicated than this but bear with me). But the CC does not believe the elephants can participate in church leadership.  Imagine a presentation of the CC/CEC delegation to the elephants.

Cheetah: We will be stronger together, and able to create a more co-operative system, in the unity that Christ wants for the church.

Elephant 1: Wonderful. But the CC doesn’t have elephants in its leadership. Will we be included in the leadership?

Cheetah: Oh yes.. You can remain in leadership in the CEC, and you can be part of committees. You can write letters and even submit your thoughts online. And you can pray for us.

Elephant 1: But the final decisions will be made by Cheetahs…

Cheetah: Well…yes…but we will need your input. And you can always influence the Cheetahs behind the scenes. Remember, those who are least are the greatest.

Elephant 2: Cheetahs from the CC will be able to lead us in worship. Will we be able to lead worship in the CC church?

Cheetah: The CCs believe that elephants can not be called by God to lead in worship because Jesus didn’t name elephants as his disciples, so you can continue to lead worship in the CEC but not in the CC.

Elephant 3: But…we are called by God to lead worship. The CEC has affirmed our call to lead worship. Is the CEC changing it’s decision about elephants leading worship?

Cheetah: Uh…no. Of course not.

Elephant 1: When we meet together, does that mean only cheetahs can lead worship because the CC won’t accept our leadership?

Cheetah: Well…yes…The CC accepts elephants, just not in leadership.

Elephant 3: But I am an elephant, and a leader. God created both in me. How do I accept one and deny the other?

Cheetah: …well…pray about it…

Elephant 2: And if the CEC agrees to this, you are asking us to choose between being elephants and being worship leaders. Except, for us, they are one and the same. That is unity.*chalice

God created me woman. God called me to be a priest. God’s call was affirmed by my local parish, two bishops, professors, supervisors, classmates, a panel of examiners, my national church, many churches around the world and continues to be affirmed by my parishioners and, yes, it is Biblical.

As a Christian for whom the Eucharist has a profound place in my life, I am moved by Stephen Colbert’s revelation about his part in the Eucharist. As a woman priest, I feel diminished. His revelation was not because of a woman priest, but because hearing a woman separated the words from the office of priest and he was able to internalize the consecration in a new way. So, while significant and beautiful, his revelation also diminishes my vocation, that I am the same as him. And I am not. I am not above, but I am set apart.

Why does this distinction matter? Because, in many parts of the world, women are excluded from ordained ministry. We are also excluded in the midst of a national (Anglican Church of Canada) and international church (Worldwide Anglican Communion) whose canon laws state that women are also called by God and yet tolerate those who do not believe this. In many places, I am expected to step aside from celebrating at the altar for the comfort of those who theologically disagree with my ordination. Point being, equality is not universal. It is only visible where it does not make people uncomfortable. We mustn’t assume there is equality when there is not.

We experience celebrity in a dichotomy. They are either completely awesome and always to be followed/retweeted/shared, or they are completely reprehensible and must never be uttered or shown or even considered for debate. Stephen Colbert is well loved, as is Pope Francis, and for good reason. They also believe in doctrines that, despite their affection and respect for women, keep women in a subservient relationship to men. And I don’t raise this because I want all feminists and those who love women to boycott Stephen Colbert or to reject Pope Francis. I raise it so we do not neglect the complexity and inequality that exists within our churches and in our relationship with other churches.

There is no need for us to sweep our disagreements under the rug in order to work towards unity. Our unity already exists in our faith in Christ. Colbert and Francis are no more or less my brothers than the men I lead, follow and work alongside. We are unique, and the Holy Spirit moves in and among us and expresses Herself in various ways to various peoples and places. Dialogue should enrich our faith by being exposed to more expressions of the Holy Spirit, not to limit the work of the Spirit to something that can be agreed to and published.

So I continue to serve in this complex institution. I stay not because we have it all figured out, but because none of us do, so I stay to work it out with my friends and sisters and brothers and, yes, even enemies. I’m glad Stephen Colbert is in the work with me.

*Please accept this ridiculous scenario as an oversimplification of ecumenical dialogue to make a point.


All this hopey changey stuff: How did Conversation 2014 work?

It has been a blast over the past 6 months or so being part of the planning team of Conversation 2014: Clergy under 40 talk to God and each other. Being the first of it’s kind in the Anglican Church of Canada, and including many of our most recent ordinands, it was clear this was going to look different from our typical clergy conferences.

And that’s what I was excited about. Ask anyone and they will tell you I have never been to a conference I didn’t like. I am, though, starting to get a little bored with the processes-flipcharts, post-its, knee groups, speakers all starting to look and sound the same, knowing that someone somewhere was expecting something out of me but not always knowing what it was.

In 2011 I attended my first unconference, UNCO, at Stony Point Retreat Centre in NY. We used a model called open space (you can read more about it here) which meant I was given no agenda before I arrived, no list of workshop topics, no biographies of speakers with professional photos; just church leaders meeting in a space to have some conversations. I also attended in 2013 and then started using open space technology in some settings here in Canada.

Conversations 2014 came along and it seemed we all wanted the same thing, “We’re going to be working together for a long time (God willing!)–so let’s get to know each other”. Simply providing a schedule of conversations and leaving the content up to the group is what we came up with.

Even though I am a huge fan of this model, it always comes with anxiety. What do we report back? How do we make sure we cover everything? If I was asked how we made the decision to this route, I would say, “We decided to trust…no, not trust the process! We decided to trust one another.”

So, how did it work? It began with The Wall, both virtual and physical. A few weeks before the conference we used our facebook group and the event page to start sharing possible discussion topics. It ranged from social media in the parish to clergy families to land and buildings to the relevance of mid-week masses. All these topics were added to a physical wall–butcher paper on the wall of Fulford Hall. As we arrived we added to the wall.

The Wall
This is the core of our conversations, The Wall or, in open space terminology, the bulletin board. Did we miss anything?

On Tuesday afternoon, we started to fill in the schedule. Out of everything on the wall, we scheduled several conversations. Unlike a typical distilling process where you look for themes and try to include everything in broad conversations, we honoured each topic’s right to have it’s own conversation and were limited only by meeting space, and thanks to the generousity of the Diocese of Montreal, even that was almost limitless. Some topics were easily shared with others, but many stood alone. Some conversations had over 20 participants, some only 3 or 4. “36 people worked out an entire conference agenda in an hour and a quarter?” Well, with a frame, but yes, yes we did!

The sked 1.0
There was a cleaner version of this. On our last day, we reviewed the schedule and added conversations that needed follow-up.

Most of the content of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday consisted of these small groups with a few plenary check-ins to explore emerging themes. By Thursday, the last conference day, some ideas for further work started to emerge. Some were conversations that may continue in our own dioceses, among other young clergy, or in our parishes. Some were actual projects that a few will work on together.

For example, I participated in many conversations, not just during the scheduled small groups but at meal times and in the evenings, about clergy and mental health. I talk a really good game about mental health and boundaries, but I also cave to pressure from a wider church that says, “You have more than anyone before you, so stop complaining”. But what if it is still inadequate to deal with the stress this vocation has on our mental health? What about the stigma that keeps clergy from talking about our own mental illness within our college for fear of repurcussion? Why do we continue to increase benefits for eyecare, prescriptions and dental care but our psychotherapy benefit remains at $300 a year in a profession where it is recommended we be in a regular therapeutic relationship, no matter how mentally healthy we are? I want to have this conversation with the wider church. This would never have emerged for me without the freedom of uncovering content with this incredible group of people.

There is much more to come out of this conference. I’ll reblog what I can, and, eventually, these posts from participants will appear in one place. Stay tuned. In the meantime, if want to have a conversation, here’s a wall to get it started