WHEN I read in the Spectator of Theo Hobson’s desire to be ordained priest in the Church of England, my first thought was: ‘How can I stop him?’
Then I calmed down, sat and thought about the matter for a long time. After this lengthy reconsideration I had a second thought. It was exactly the same as my first thought: ‘How can I stop him?’
Now why should I wish to accomplish an act of such palpable malice? Surely to seek holy orders is commendable semper et ubique? I will answer plainly: because it is clear from Mr Hobson’s article that he hasn’t the foggiest idea what priesthood is about.
His ignorance does not impede him from setting out his own reason for seeking ordination which is: ‘I want more joy in my life.’
Wrong from the start. Priesthood is not about me and my wants. It is not about me at all. Rather it requires the surrender of ego and the willingness to accept the anonymity of a functionary, literally of an order – one of the three distinct ecclesiastical orders of bishops, priests and deacons. He says he wants to find his joy through being ‘democratic’. But holy orders are not democratic. By definition they are hierarchical. Does Mr Hobson know the derivation of the word ‘hierarchy’?
Clearly, he doesn’t understand what the Church is. For him it is all about feelings. ‘Stick with it,’ he says, and ‘it starts to feel a bit more like it ought to feel.’ And how ought the Church to feel? Just when I thought his apologia couldn’t get any worse, it did just that: ‘I’m someone who wants a bit more earnest shared culture as a ground for being myself.’ Yuk! More I and me and myself. Touchy-feelier than thou, as it were.
And he is afraid that the Church may not share his commitment to being ‘democratic’. He asks: ‘Didn’t it always have a dubious authoritarian side?’
Yes, thank God, it did. And there was nothing dubious about the authority which derives from Christ himself and is enshrined in the words of the ordination rite: ‘Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.’
No dubiousness there, Mr Hobson!
What is dubious, and more than dubious, is his conviction that the Church is tied ‘very benignly to political and cultural liberalism’. Tell that to Samuel Coleridge, who wrote in On the Constitution of Church and State: ‘Christianity cannot be reduced to the principles of political liberalism, because it demands the moral regeneration of the person, not merely the assertion of individual rights.’
It is nice to see that Mr Hobson admits his church attendance. Presumably he joins in the regular recitation of the Creed which most definitely declares: ‘I believe in one Catholic and apostolic Church.’
If he can find the time in all his anxious joy-seeking, I suggest he reads Cardinal St John Henry Newman who said: ‘The real choice is between Catholicism and liberalism in religion.’ It’s make your mind up time, Mr Hobson.
When all is said and done, there is one thing which distinguishes the priesthood from the laity. It has nothing to do with being good with the youth club or going down well with the ladies who do the flowers. It does not exist to reassure Mr Hobson that he won’t lose what he calls his ‘edge’. The priest is marked out as different only and precisely because he is the custodian of the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and he alone has the authority – yes, the authority, Mr Hobson – to pronounce God’s absolution. We have this from the mouth of Jesus Christ. ‘Whosoever’s sins ye remit, they are remitted and whosoever’s sins ye retain, they are retained.’ Among all Mr Hobson’s jabber about ‘human fulfilment’ there is not a single mention of this unique, definitive and dominical qualification in his article.
He recalls: ‘The weeks leading up to my final interview.’
Oh dear, does this mean he has been accepted?
PS Oh, and I forgot: he says nothing about prayer either.
