Archbishop of Canterbury
Secretary General of the Anglican Communion
Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church
Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster
British Prime Minister
British Newspapers
Guardian Clifford Longley The best and worst of times
Guardian Stephen Bates The pope who showed the church to the world
Observer Christina Odone The man in white who changed the world
Observer editorial The man who loved humanity
Observer Peter Stanford Who will now lead one billion souls?
Independent on Sunday AN Wilson The defenders of the faiths
Independent on Sunday Catherine Pepinster He was simply the world’s most charismatic Christian
Sunday Telegraph Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor ‘John Paul II will leave us all orphans. I shall miss him’
Sunday Telegraph Clifford Longley How does the Catholic Church follow John Paul? It doesn’t
Sunday Telegraph Christopher Howse The visionary who changed history through sheer force of moral will
Sunday Telegraph editorial The meaning of suffering
The Times William Rees-Mogg A truly great holder of this highest of religious offices
The Times editorial Man and mission
Sunday Times Mary Kenny John Paul’s final gift: to share his last hours with the world
Sunday Times Leading article: A hard act to follow
Sunday Times John Cornwell Death of a titan
Sunday Times Christopher Morgan ‘Bishop of Gatwick and the panzer cardinal’ prepare for nine days of mourning – and the horsetrading of votes
One of the many wonderful things about JPII was his refusal to compromise what he saw as timeless truths to the ‘spirit of the age’.
This is off topic, I’m afraid – but have you seen Bishop Gene Robinson’s latest ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/03/ngay03.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/03/ixhome.html
He was a great combination:
-Global/universal/international rather than parochial in his thinking.
-Authentically Christian (as opposed to ‘right’, ‘left’ or whatever) in his outlook, & always aiming to back up his positions with proper reasoning, albeit expressed in a simple (not simplistic) way that the people could understand.
-One of the Christian leaders that people genuinely did look to as a leader, both spiritual and political, sometimes in preference to more obviously ‘political’ figures.
-A man of peace, who held that in war both sides are the losers.
Ah yes: the sensitive, thoughtful and dispassionate coverage {sarcasm-mode OFF} I’ve come to expect from the “Tell-a-lie”. You’re going to have to do better than that, Laban.
[+Gene didn’t say anything that hasn’t been said by faithful Christians for 2000 years: “the stone that the builders rejected had been made the chief-cornerstone: this is the LORD’s doing, and it is *marvelous* in our eyes!”]
LAban, I did see what was reported here, and I found it interesting that the offensive stuff was what people SAID that he said, not what he actually DID say.
Come on, I think we all know the game that Gene Robinson is playing here. “You may think I’m suggesting that Jesus was gay .. but of course I couldn’t possibly comment.” “Bishop Robinson .. said that he could feel ‘God’s light and God’s life ooze over me like warm butter’.” Euuuuk. Take a bath, Gene, why don’t you? I actually have a lot of sympathy for +Gene, so it saddens me to see him playing to his core constituency in this way, instead of trying to win over the Episcopalian middle ground. But how trivial it all seems! compared… Read more »
Those who are commenting on the recent Sunday Telegraph report, please note that the entire proceedings were recorded and can be listened to in full, by going to
http://www.christchurchhw.org/
It is thus very easy to find out what it was that Bishop Robinson actually said.
I personally find it hard to believe that either Elizabeth Day or Chris Sugden had done that carefully before making the claims that they have made.
Well, I listened to the whole thing (took ages to find the piece) and I’m sure Andrew Conway has correctly discerned the intent. Robinson didn’t say (in so many words) ‘Jesus was homosexual’ but he clearly implied that, especially in his reference to Jesus’ relationship with the ‘beloved disciple’. (‘What! you mean the Secret Gospel of St Mark is wrong?’ /irony off) The newspaper correctly quoted his words and drew out the implication. It was an unscripted and unguarded moment for Robinson that tells us a lot about the man’s inner thoughts. Earlier Robinson said in reply to an articulate… Read more »
Almost two decades ago I was discussing “sexual orientation issues” with the heterosexual (married/kids/grandkids/self-admitted) Bishop of my Diocese…he paused, reflected, then quietly said:
“Nobody knows the sexual orientation of Jesus Christ.”
I understood.
James, Bishop Robinson has actually declined the vast majority of the many requests he has received for appearances and speeches. The spotlight—or crosshairs (about which one should not joke, IMO)—he has been thrust into, is never something he sought. +Gene is not something “‘progressive’ Anglicanism has to offer”: he is the bishop who the people of the Diocese of New Hampshire *democratically-elected*—which is not something that say, the People of Rome can claim of *their* late bishop (RIP). Of course Christians have differing opinions whether this is a virtue or not (though only for those *with a vote* will their… Read more »
See this report in the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper: NH bishop denies suggesting Christ was gay, http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=52898
Mr Fisher, it’s never been disputed that Gene Robinson’s election followed due process; the same may be said for Arius and a whole phalanx of heresiarchs. Whether ‘democracy’ is a virtue in the election of bishops is not the issue, either. (Don’t those Sinn Fein thugs claim a ‘mandate’?) The issue has always been his fitness to be a bishop in the first place. I do grant that his ‘story’ (self-related narrative) is of interest and I am sensitive to the enormous amount of personal pain that underlies this: a lad from a fundamentalist background struggling with same-sex desires, having… Read more »
The main ‘evidence’ (if one can call it that) comes from the gospels of John and Secret Mark, neither of which any liberal worth their salt would normally scour for accurate historical information, unless they had a vested interest in doing so.
“Whether ‘democracy’ is a virtue in the election of bishops is not the issue, either. (Don’t those Sinn Fein thugs claim a ‘mandate’?) The issue has always been his fitness to be a bishop in the first place.” And of course, only those who agree with your position somehow have the mystical power to decide a candidate’s fitness ? A democratic process is the way the ECUSA determines how the Holy Spirit is speaking to our church. Perfect ? No, but as Churchill said, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others… Read more »
“It is a testament to the theological bankruptcy of ECUSA that anyone would take him seriously.” Oh yeah, the (collective) ad hominem: that’s sure to persuade me. And making inferences via malicious gossip (“I cannot escape the impression that there is more to this than is being disclosed, knowing of cases where fragile marriages have foundered through addictions to substance abuse, pornography or affairs”) is another winner. Think I’ll stick w/ the “theologically bankrupt” (as opposed to trotting off to my self-appointed theological superiors . . . though I’m sure they’d be willing to cancel my bankruptcy, w/ a gift… Read more »
Simeon: I have no mystical powers, and neither are they needed to determine a man’s fitness to be a bishop; the terms for this are already given in 1 Timothy 3. My reference to Sinn Fein (I could just as easily have said George Bush) to which you took exception was simply to say that popular appeal (however this is assessed) is no measure of spiritual or moral truth. How a church elects its bishops doesn’t really concern me; you might as well flip a coin or get an Egyptian shepherd boy to draw lots (well, it worked for St… Read more »
James, it genuinely mystifies me that, when quite a few respondents here at TA just drop, in passing, words to the effect of “well, we need not debate that the Bible condemns homosexuality,” you feel you need (are entitled to?) some lengthy inquest into “what wasn’t working out” in the marriage of Gene and Isabelle Robinson. I don’t pretend to know many details, but +Gene has said that he told her, going into the marriage, that he thought he had had (past-tense) a homosexual orientation, but he also thought it was behind him (this was in the early 1970s). They… Read more »
“.. the constant humiliation I feel on TA comment threads .. the sense that I’m making an (obnoxious) fool of myself ..”
*hugs JCF*
This place would be much duller without you, JCF, and I personally value your comments all the more for being so unashamedly personal (rather than being cut from a predictable ideological cookie-cutter, like the comments of some people I could mention ..).