Editorial: a bizarre bill by archbishop

Photo: Urmas Nemvalts

The priestly ethics code bill proposed by Lutheran Archbishop Andres Põder is a document of the strange sort, doubtless offering meat for mockers. Therein, good hygiene is for instance recommended – people would do well to wash up and tidy their fingernails. In basic school, a welcome piece of advice; but when told to a quarter of a thousand grown-ups highly educated…

So the professionals took offence. All heaped together, criminal activities («a priest shall not /…/ mediate narcotic substances») and those that are legal yet doubtful ethically («a priest shall not gamble for money» – could a minister buy a lottery ticket?) are banned.

Though by not it seems clear the code will not enter into force due to resistance by bulk of priests, it allows us to sneak a peek into inner debates of the church.  

There are the tensions, sure. The bill smacks of an attempt to fortify central leadership and authority of governing bodies. Why else try to limit ministers belonging to various organisations? An obvious attempt to increase public opaqueness is reflected: «It is not allowed for priests to use media, secular institutions or courts to bring charges against their church or colleagues without first using competent church representative and arbitration bodies to solve the differences.» To a degree, it’s natural for any organisation not to wash its dirty laundry in public. Still, the wording leaves inner opposition under domain of church-powers-that-be, clearly hindering public interchange over topics vital for the church itself. Or: should a priest find out a colleague is a paedophile, can’t he have recourse to the «secular» police; if owed money by a fellow priest, are courts excluded? Such secrecy would run counter to the Lutheran roots in Estonia, being the people’s church.

The morals, then, better perhaps called social conservatism. With the society trending towards openness and tolerance, but not the church, the organisation becomes ever more anachronistic. No such power over people any more, for the church, as in 19^th century. Should a pastor today disparage and demean a young mother (before the congregation) for pregnancy out of wedlock, the girl would just leave the church and go on with her life. Better for the church to see the humanistic side of some stuff being relative and love coming before lecturing. But as the bizarre bill was binned, there must be hope yet.