The madness of civilization is growing at a pace exceeding our imagination and we rather don’t keep up with all the ideas reported in the media: all those LGBTQs and so on, redefinition of marriage, destruction of male and female identity, reversion of rules and principles, manipulation in the field of life and death, desexualization of newborns and older children, though they already know if they are boys or girls.

    SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE 
  Among the most celebrated celebrities it was Joanne K. Rowling, the same who brought to life Harry Potter thus becoming one of the richest writers in the world and of the greatest personalities in Great Britain, who first said “no” to this madness. Well, a year or two ago the famous author, without any ambiguity or winking to the public, she announced that there are only two sexes in the world: man and woman. And she stopped being the beloved author of the organizers of mass literary life, gadgets producers, film-makers, publicists and other businessmen, all being unleashed in fueling the “Harry Potter” business.

She was denied to enter the annual Harry Potter fan club festival, now – as I read somewhere – it is unthinkable to ask about her in “appropriate” places. In the Warner Bros film studio a reporter was inquiring Rowling’s presence – or rather absence – from an actor: we are talking about Harry Potter’s mother! – but a PR company intervened and the topic disappeared. The topic of Rowling, of course. There is no such an author or at least it is shameful to talk about her, even if she has written super bestsellers, admired everywhere in the world. Perhaps this woman needs to redefine her way of thinking...

And such an Anglican Church has learnt its lesson well over the past few years and has understood how to live. And it said there is “no official definition" of a woman. There is none and that’s it. It doesn’t matter that there is biology and the Bible – there is no definition.

The issue originated from the fact that a certain Adam Kendry, lay member of the General Synod of the Church of England, representing also the Royal Navy so an institution that is very distinguished and highly respected among HM’s subjects, addressed his Synod with a question: “what is the Church of England’s definition of a woman?” Well, what is it? All of the above having been revealed by the British journal “The Daily Telegraph”, the information was palatable albeit hazy for an outside observer.

One episcopus emeritus said for instance that as much as the meaning of the word woman “thought to be self-evident” in the past, it now requires “additional care”. A king’s ransom to whoever tells me what that means!

The newspaper reports that although the new stance was welcomed by the Church’s liberal wings with content, its members who are critically disposed towards the discussion about sex say that whether “whether your starting point is biology or the Bible” ”. This episcopus emeritus wrote also – as “The Daily Telegraph” informs – that the lack of an official definition reflects the fact that until recently it had been believed such definitions to be self-evident, which is reflected in the liturgy of marriage.

It is, indeed, so why and what for abandon this liturgy and this obviousness? For what higher good shall we “chop” into pieces this obviousness reflected in the liturgy and question each fragment separately, grind, slacken the thinking process, plant doubts and infect others with them, those uncertain about their faith and identity – and we are truly not talking about sexual identity here.

But let’s get back to “The Daily Telegraph” and its enunciation. Well, the reverned Angela Berners-Wilson, who was ordained priest in 1994 as the first woman in the Church of England and who has recently retired, was dissatisfied with the bishop’s answer and the comments to it. “ I think we need to be very sensitive and maybe we need to reexamine our boundaries” – she told the newspaper.

In turn, a certain Maya Forstater, chief executive officer of the “Sex Matters” campaign found the bishop’s answer “outrageous”, she also reminded that “the concepts of male and female did not need to have a formal official definition” because “they are older than human life itself”. So there are still independently thinking people in this circle!

But another lady from the Synod gathering, Jayne Ozanne, considered Adam Kendry’s question as “passive aggressive”. She said: “Mr Kendy's question is sadly a prime example of a passive aggressive question that is designed to upset the LGBT+ community and particularly the trans members in our midst. ”.

Oops, here we’are on dangerous ground: before noon a bloke is a member of the Anglican Church, afternoon they are a “memberness”, in two days – a member back again, so by what right someone dares ask about the definition of his membership?

Well, let’s see what happens next. Will these revelations sadden Her Royal Majesty who is the head of this Church after all – if they reach her ears, and they will probably do, because it is still a very smart elderly woman who doesn’t lose the most important events form sight and who expresses her anxiety even if she does it in a relevant, highly diplomatic manner.

The history is unwinding but what can really surprise us in it? Although Elizabeth II as the head of the Church doesn’t utter a word on that, the fact remains that The Anglican Church has long been losing whole communities of the faithful which, along with their priests, switch to the Roman Catholic Church where, having made all the declarations of faith prescribed by the Canon law they live without fear of future acts of madness.

But are they entirely safe form civilization turbulences within the Catholic Church? I’m not particularly prone to fear and stories about threats but he example of Joanne K. Rowling appealed to me very strongly. Therefore I shall write didactically that if every ordinary mother and every ordinary father pay more attention to their basic parental duties, maybe the catastrophe will somewhat be delayed?

–Barbara Sułek-Kowalska

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and jornalists

–Translated by Dominik Szczęsny-Kostanecki