Religion

[Wyndham]

We're having a terrible bout of 'altar boys' right now. One of the first and most filthy scandals in N. America concerned Mount Cashel orphanage in Nfld. The resident priest at the time wasn't involved, it seemed. He went on to bigger and better things . . . until his arrest last week, for attempting to come back into Canada with a computer full of kiddy porn. Oh yes! Since that time he's graduated from 'who really cares' priest to 'OMG' Archbishop.

Yep, its getting ugly.

Hi Pink. I'm Anglican too. You know what? I don't think I have trouble believing. Its practising I have trouble with. I know that seems odd.

[pinkozcat]

I don't believe, but I think that the Christian ethos is good, as is the Muslim one when not taken over by radicals. But a great deal of harm has been done in the name of God over the last 2000 years.

I also think that, as a general rule, people need a 'power of last resort' to pass the buck to. I see practised religion as an attempt to appease the entity of last resort so that things will go well with the world. There's nothing wrong with that if it makes people feel happy and secure and I certainly don't try to pursuade people to give up their beliefs.

We are having orphanage and school problems here. A lot of kids were shipped out here from England after WWII and worked as farm slave labour and abused by a particular Christian organisation. The men are only now starting to find the courage to come forward and tell their stories.

[Wyndham]

I guess an issue for me is an active imagination. I imagine myself being all powerful -- not even merciful or compassionate, just all powerful.

I don't think the descriptions provided of the behaviour of such a being really logically follow.

I doubt I'd care much, for example, if people went to Church and certainly won't care wht they thought of me. If I'd wanted them to think a certain way, or tell me how great I was all the time, I'd have made them that way.

There would be a heaven, but no hell.

I don't think I'd care a rat's ass what people wore or ate.

That sort of thing.

And yet we're told such a being (also merciful and compassionate) will send people to everylasting perdition if they eat pork, fail to veil properly, or eat fish with a salad fork.

Faith doesn't die but the 'who really cares' factor certainly waxes.

[Tenarke]

Looked at from the outside in, as I do, organized religion is a never ending source of amusement and sometime amazement. After the history of burnings and “puttings to the question”, mother Rome is trying to welcome her wayward Anglican prodigals back onto the true path.

www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/world/europe/21pope.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

I doesn’t sound as though this idea is going to fly well anywhere. Especially not, I should think, in Ireland.

Rome is getting a little desperate, maybe – you think?

[pinkozcat]

I really don't know what the media is getting so excited about; there have always been married ex-anglican priests. The Catholic chaplain for Mental Health, where I worked here in Western Australia, was married with four daughters. He was ordained before he converted to catholicism.

He was pretty radical too - wouldn't let any but Catholics into his services whereas the chaplain for "all other religions" was happy to welcome anyone who wanted to attend.

I understand that the latest subject on twitter started off as "No God" but has been changed by the powers that be to "Know God".

[Wyndham]

I've been following that Tenarke/Pink. I was flumoxed for a bit, because its not clear who he's going to get.

Issue is that those most opposed to drift are members of the Evangelical party. They, however, react to silver crosses, incense and holy water like vampires. Chance that they will make the passage to Rome is near zero. On the other hand, the smells and bells crowd are exactly the ones who are friendly to women bishops and gay priests. Not difficult to see why. I use to go to a Church in Vancouver, seat of the renegade Bishop of New Westminster (one of the guys at the centre of the storm for ordaining practising homosexuals) that probably had all the interior decorators and florists in the city as parishoners. Easter was something to see. Rome doesn't want those guys.

Who are they going to get then, but a few lunatics? It won't be a happy marriage. These lunatics will buck any discipline, and the Pope use to run the inquisition. It won't be pretty.

Times however is reporting this as an aspect of inter-Catholic infighting. In brief, the Catholic conservatives are looking to block the Catholic liberals. Catholic liberals, strong in the Congregation for the Evangelicization of the Peoples has been working for decades at intercommunion with Anglicans and was almost there. Almost. The Pope was scheduled to come to London next September. Liberals hoped this was why. They want this because they figure that if Rome recognizes the validity of Anglican sacraments and orders that their hand will be mightily strengthened on issues like female priests. The Holy Office, now, comes out with this. Its a fortress of Conservatives. Issue is that this was never discussed with the Anglican hierarchy who have been working like Trojans for a decade to heal divisions. They are going to be PISSED, and they (Broad Church) were also the guys most interested in healing the breach with Rome. With the few loud sectarians gone, and with what's effectively intercommunion dead, issues like female Bishops are apt to move quickly. This will poision the pill, and eliminate the danger. Win win win if you are a Catholic Conservative.

Very tangled, but wouldn't be the first time papal policies regarding England and Anglicans had nothing to do with England and Anglicans, if true.

[pinkozcat]

They will probably gain the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. The Archbishop of Sydney is very much against women being ordained and the Diocese has more or less gone it alone for some years.

It will be interesting to see if they go over to Rome or continue to go it alone.

[Tenarke]

The NY Times has this article about the impact of the Roman invasion in Britain itself.

www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/opinion/25wilson.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

I take it that the author has tongue somewhat engaged in cheek.

If he is correct the predominate religion in England; or, at any rate in London, is Agnosticism.

Not being a member of the club, I hadn’t realized that though liberal Anglicans had admitted homosexuals and Women to the priesthood, the line had been drawn at Bishops. I also had never heard of “flying” Bishops.

His conclusion is interesting. If Rome succeeds it might destroy the Church of England - to England’s benefit.

And who will look after the cathedrals?

[Wyndham]

Hi Tenarke. An interesting article, but I can't agree. For one thing, his facts are wrong. I believe that there are no female Bishops, in the UK. I think there is one female, and one gay Bishop in the US. I'll stand correction on that, but the last Lambeth council panned the idea, enforced a moritorium, and enforced discipline. The installation of some more is possible now, as the Church is expected to respond with some anger, and pretty much adopt the position 'who cares what Rome thinks'?

Me, I think that being eaten by Rome is less of a worry than before. Since Vatican II they've abandoned most of what produced protest 500 years ago. They'll call it Catholic, but judging by the test of the 39 articles, it will be Anglican!

Even more so, religion is cyclic. We've been here before -- about once a century. Then a John Wesley is born. That's happened three times to date, so I'm anticipating one shortly. I'll live to see that, I'm sure.

Oh! The Church of England won't be 'eaten' and disappear. He should check out its finances. Its Doctor Evil Rich, and a hostile takeover couldn't affect that. Priests might go (there are 13,000 in England, incidentally, so 500 wouldn't make a dent). I don't know if a Bishop will go, but if so they'd go as an individual (like any other clergyman) and enter the RC Church as a priest. This is happened once, that I know of, and that's what happened then. Issue is that what remains will have mucho bucks. Already they have enough to run all the churches and all the operations without anything on the plate. They own something like 120,000 acres central, not counting included organisations (the colleges in Oxford and Cambridge, or individual parishes for example). When hedge funds tubed, a year ago, the C of E, in England, had 19 billion pounds left after the fall in those markets alone! One fund (Queen Anne's Bounty), dedicated to supplementing the pay of parsons has 5 billion pounds in ready money, even now. Welcome to the magic of 'always buy, never sell' coupled to compound interest. This is just to say that the CofE is apt to go 'shaker' at worst.

Finally, the biggest, most missionary, most Protestant Churches are in Africa. It will be a cold, cold day in hell before Nigeria, Uganda, S. Africa or Zimbabwe (or the others) go to Rome. Thing is that they are self sufficient, and have been since the 70s. When nobody in the world noticed Biafra or Idi Amin, they decided that they had no friends and prepared themselves for autonomy. Good thing! As I think I've said before, it will be an ironic development when Wesley's children, re-evangelize the rest of the English speaking world.

Oh! I should say too, if the Church is disestablished, that's a good thing. The current Archbishop of Canterbury has been pushing that for a decade. He thinks the Gov't has got more out that than the CofE ever did. When he declared the war in Iraq an 'unjust war' and nobody noticed, the writing was on the wall.

Don't get me started about the Constitution -- incidentally, our constitution too, since the Statute of Westminster in 1931! The UK has little ability to change that, if it even wanted.

Should indicate finally that Rome is at best redressing the balance. The Anglican church needs no special today only deal. The way in has alway been easy, since Catholic sacraments and orders have always been recognised -- a one way street, until now. As consequence, however, the Church of Ireland is the quickest growing sect in Ireland. Its got 1922 numbers now, and is expected to regain 1922 proportion shortly. This isn't natural growth, but the defection of parishoners and clergy appalled by you know what. I can remember, as a kid, meeting three different priests who'd been ordained Roman, but made the passage to Canterbury. All's fair in love and war. If the Anglican Church knew its business, however as a propagandist, it would immediately respond with a restatement of what its always done as if it were something different, for the headlines -- way now clear for Catholics disgusted by you know what to join the Anglican Church; Catholic clergy, disposed to marry, come on down.

Alas, that's our downfall across the board -- I confess to partisan feeling in writing this -- too much class.

[Wyndham]

Hi Pink. Just re-read you post. I'm not sure how things are set up in Australia. Here it would be impossible for a diocese to defect, even if every member of it and all the clergy did. Issue is that Diocese are incorporated here. We have had a case (believe it or not) of a Bishop being kicked out, and a new one installed. There is one Parish here attempting to defect -- or at least some of is members want to defect (although I don't think to Rome) -- but its fairly clear that they cannot do so, as a Parish. The members can do what they want, but the building and endowments belong to the Diocese.

Interesting subject. Don't know what would happen if an Archbishop attempted to take out a whole Diocese. Presumably he's the Primate of Australia? If so, there'd be no reason for him to defect since he runs the show there anyway (as you say, 'goes it alone'). Is he Evangelical? I would bet. If so, a stopper is apt to be (as for most such) that you don't generally defect to something worse, no?

[pinkozcat]

Wyndham, I am not quite sure how it all works here and only know what I read in the papers, Sydney being on the other side of the continent from Perth. But The real problem with Sydney seemed to start when our Archbishop became Primate of Australia and not only started to ordain women but actually said that Jesus probably didn't die on the cross (my opinion entirely).

The Archbishop of Sydney, I think but am not sure of the mechanics, withdrew from the General Synod and disassociated himself from the main body of the Anglican Church in Australia. That was some years ago now and there is a new Primate. I don't know what his views are but we still have female clergy. But not in the Diocese of Sydney ...

I suspect that the Archbishop of Sydney is very, very high church; he has certainly been a thorn in the flesh of the main Anglican body for quite a while; and he hangs in there although he hasn't been in the papers for a while.

Robert, who lives much closer to the action, might be able to shed more light on the situation.

[Wyndham]

Hi Pink. I bet you he's evangelical. They're the one's who usually get excited about female clergy, and gay marriage.

You know, that would be a pickle -- a Bishop severing the connection with his Primate.

I only know where that's happened once before, but that was very famous. The Colenso case in Africa. This is it in brief, as I remember it. Back in the 1880s, the Bishop of Natal was Colenso. He had been a literalist, but having convinced himself that Noah could not possibly have put two of every animal in the arc etc., reacted in the other direction and became a real free thinker. His Primate was the Archbishop of S. Africa, who tried to 'deprive him'. Colenso refused to go, and responded that it was a principle of Anglicanism that every Bishop is supreme in his Diocese (true). Reason its a famous case is that, at that juncture, the supreme body of world Anglicanism was the Judical Committee of the Privy Council. At the time, it was composed (as I recall) of two atheists, two Jews and one Presbyterian. As might be expected, it claimed to have no jurisdiction. Archbishop of S. Africa appealled to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who also claimed to have no jurisdiction (Anglican Churches are national) but who did assemble a world wide conference of Anglican Bishops (1st Lambeth Conference) to consider the problem. Ever since that time the Lambeth Conference has been the actual, supreme governing body. It ordered Colenso deprived, and excommunicated and a new Bishop went out. Colenso didn't pack it in, incidentally, and remained effectively Bishop of the Zulu nation.

Pretty neat.

I would guess it would take Lambeth Conference to sort out your Archbishop, but if he's Evangelical, and if he's opposed to female clergy, the Africans would never go along with it. They will, however, go along with disciplining the other party (female and gay Bishops, ordination of homosexuals, same sex unions) and were five seconds from expelling the Episcopal Church of the United States last year. The Anglican Church of Canada was also in the dock, but backed down, with our Primate (A-Bishop Hutchinson, who I know!) publically rebuking the rebel Bishop of New Westminster (BC) and threatening him with deprivation.

On the other side of the coin, Tutu especially led the charge against the Evangelicals and roundly spanked the Africans for meddling in other peoples' business. As if they didn't have enough on their plate without worrying about what's going on in N. Mexico (that's pretty much his line).

That's state of play now. Centre is holding, with extremes silenced. Issues aren't resolved however.

I think this 'status quo' is the reason why the British papers have written up the Pope's recent initiative as 'unnecessary roughness'.

[pinkozcat]

Wyndham, you are quite right; there is a feature article in today's paper headed "Pope's Catholic Overture Exposes Church Discord".

I quote:

"Anglicans in Australia are split between conservatives and liberals but the conservatives are divided between Anglo-Catholics and the staunchly Protestant evangelicals whose power base is in Sydney."

The article goes on to suggest that those likely to 'go over' have already done so, joining a splinter group called the Traditional Anglican Communion.

[Wyndham]

yeah. That's the magic bullet.

The Pope can't have the people he pretends he's after. High Church is, well, gay. Low church bucks discipline, but it will be a cold, cold day in hell before they smell incense. The move stalemates broad church, strikes dead big guys like Tutu and Williams. Nothing to say. What can be said?

Its about laying a beating on the liberal Catholics. Depend on it. That's the way its been for 500 years. Hell, its why there are Anglicans.