And yet, Bishop Catherine Roskam has caused outrage and offence by her assertion that some of the bishops at the Lambeth conference beat their wives. Three most ostrich-like quotes from bishops interviewed appeared in The Times yesterday
The Archbishop of York [John Sentanu] said: "I have never beaten my wife ... I hope Bishop Catherine has got statistics and figures, because if not she is in danger of causing an unnecessary rumpus."
Bishop Nathaniel Nakwatumbah of Namibia said: "I do not beat my wife. That is ridiculous. There are such great people gathering here in ecclesial spirit. It is inconceivable that a bishop would beat his wife."
Bishop David James, of Bradford, said: "I do not beat my wife who I love very much and who is a tremendous support to me. Of the bishops I have met from around the world, which is quite a number, I have no reason to suspect that any of them do.
However, there was one less definite comment
Bishop Zache Duracin of Haiti said: "I do not know any bishops who beat their wives. But she may be aware of some."
So could one of the journalists covering Lambeth please, please track down and ask Mme Duracin how much she knows?
And so if /when anyone does ask Mme Duracin, or any other of the 600+ wives at Lambeth, if they themselves or anyone else they knew there was being beaten, what would happen?
*according to Womens Aid
** This statement appeared in a manual on domestic violence that I was asked to read in a job I had several years ago. I can't find a source for this - can anyone else?
5 comments:
I've been emotionally and spiritually abused but not physically, unless you count being made to work in a dangerous environment, which I do.
This is what religion does. It is shit.
Anon,
I'm sorry.
That was almost the quickest reply I've ever had to anything I've posted... which I think says a lot.
Feel free to say more..
Does anyone else wamt to comment?
Grace
I fully agree with what you post, but at the same time, I found Bishop Roskam's comment extremely unhelpful.
It is along the general judgement-without-proof lines like "gays are promiscuous", "evangelicals are literalist fundamentalists" and "liberals ignore Scriptures".
It may well be that some of the Bishops at Lambeth beat their wives, but it may just as well be that they don't.
Now, if she had said that it is statistically LIKELY that at least some bishops at Lambeth beat their wives she would have sounded more reasonable and less like someone just throwing a stone into the water and seeing where it lands.
I think it's sad, because she has actually destroyed the case she had. Everyone can now happily ignore her comments, hide behind rejecting the generalisation and not engage with the specific.
I hadn't read her like that.
But yes, I can appreciate now the annoyance she caused. Like whenever I'm told "British people can't wash up properly" - regardless of the content of the statement, infuriating for the stereotype...
Well, she did say it was "likely" instead of pronouncing fact. I just wonder what her reason was. Is she trying to discredit them and by implication their views on homosexuality? Or was she making some broader statement about heterosexual male power abuse? I couldn't tell from the link.
Post a Comment