Despite what my esteemed and brainy colleague Mike Potemra reports on the Pope’s supposed opposition to welcoming conservative Anglicans to Rome, Telegraph “Holy Smoke” blogger Damian Thompson today claims that’s bunk:
More evidence this morning that Catholic liberals are panicking at the prospect of an influx of conservative Anglicans. They want us to believe that Pope Benedict is “shunning defectors” in an attempt to shore up the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not true. . . .
The Pope is supporting moves by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to construct a model whereby a group of rebel conservative Anglicans, the Traditional Anglican Communion, can be received en masse and occupy their own structures inside the Roman Catholic Church. This model – which is being constructed in secret – could serve as a blueprint for mainstream Anglicans wanting to convert as a group.
To understand what is going on, it is important to grasp that Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s head of ecumenism who is attending Lambeth, is not a close adviser to the Pope. He and the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger have even clashed publicly in the past. Likewise, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, who is also attending Lambeth, is not close to the Holy Father.
Always remember: it was Cardinal Ratzinger who sent a personal message of support to conservative Anglicans meeting in Dallas in 2003, thereby horrifying Kasper – who, as a professional ecumenist, probably is unsympathetic to Anglo-Catholics rocking the boat. But he, thank God, is soon to retire.
I’m intrigued by the role played by the liberal Catholic magazine the Tablet in spinning this Pope-spurns-defectors story. Benedict is an old adversary of the Tablet, which spent many years blackening his name. Recently, Rome asked the English bishops to explain why they never distance themselves from the publication, which this year carried an article advocating lay celebration of the Eucharist.
The Tablet adores Rowan Williams and despises Anglo-Catholic opponents of women priests. Small wonder, then, that it is attempting to shore up Cantuar’s position by misrepresenting Benedict, with (I fear) the tacit support of some members of the English hierarchy.
More Thompson: He reports the Archbishop of Canterbury’s goal of Lambeth cranking out a “covenant of beliefs” will not be achieved by democratic means:
There will be no votes or resolutions: instead, we have the concept of “Indabas”.
As the conference website explains, “Indaba is a Zulu word for a gathering for purposeful discussion and is both a process and method of engagement, and offers a way of listening to one another concerning challenges that face the Anglican Communion.”
Indaba tutorial here. Anyway, you can’t blame Thompson for wrapping up his analysis thusly: “I’m sure the African bishops will feel thoroughly at home. Or they would do, if nearly 200 of them weren’t actually planning to stay at home.”
The BBC reports BBC reports top U.S. Episcopalian, Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, says “her church has embarrassed other parts of the Anglican Communion with its approach to sexuality,” then counsels that, instead of discussing sexuality issues,
“The Anglican Communion needs to have conversations about colonialism, post-colonialism and neo-colonialism, but we haven’t really begun to do that. “I think that’s going to be exceedingly important to healing the wounds of the past, and to some degree of the present.”
The Guardian offers a devastating analysis of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s leadership, including this:
There is also concealed anger, according to another friend, a former primate. “He is exploding with anger … He can hardly bear to hear the names of some of the bishops who are causing him grief.” And not only bishops. This is David Virtue, an American blogger of the spittle-flecked variety: “Williams puts collegiality ahead of gospel truth. That won’t fly with these folk any more. The schism has already been caused by the liberals and pan-sexualists. If there is a break … it is precisely because of the intransigence of the liberals and Affirming Catholics like Williams who want to change what revealed truth is. “The post-colonial mentality of Williams and the Church of England hierarchs … are appalling examples of xenophobia. The vast majority of the Anglican communion will no longer take it. They are done. Their leaders have tolerated the patronising tones of Williams long enough.”
The Guardian also carries a column by Giles Fraser (“Vicar of Putney” ― sounds like a character from Thomas the Tank Engine) potty-mouthily defending gay U.S. Bishop Gene Robinson. Judge for yourself:
Day after day, buckets of spiritual s**t are thrown at him, sometimes by fellow bishops, and he just keeps going. Spending some time with him over the last few days, I have discovered how he does it. He is the real deal. He is a believer. Responding to attacks that he had a “homosexual agenda”, he insisted: “Here and now, in St Mary’s Church, Putney, I want to reveal to you the homosexual agenda. The homosexual agenda is: Jesus.” He went on to preach a fiery, almost revivalist, sermon, calling on Anglicans to take Jesus into their heart and to allow Him to cast out their fear.
Curious Romanist here: what role has Queen Elizabeth, a.k.a. Supreme Governor of the Church of England, if any in the controversy? She is reported to be very concerned by the Archbishop’s recent speech on England accepting / tolerating sharia law ― what if any royal anxiety is there over the C of E meltdown?
Sharia II: Yesterday’s Daily Mail reports reports Archbishop Williams, in a letter to Muslim leaders, says Christianity is offensive to Islam:
He told Muslim leaders that faith has no connection with political power or force, and that Christians have in the past betrayed this idea. ‘Christianity has been promoted at the point of the sword and legally supported by extreme sanctions,’ Dr Williams said. Islam, he continued, has been supported in the same way and ‘there is no religious tradition whose history is exempt from such temptation and such failure.’ The Archbishop appeared to rebuke his colleague, Bishop of Rochester Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who criticised his sharia lecture and who maintains that Christianity is central to British law, politics and society.