At last! Something about Anglicans has appeared on wikileaks.
Read WikiLeaks: Pope’s offer to Anglicans risked ‘violence against Catholics’ at the Guardian by Andrew Brown, Robert Booth and Heather Brooke.
The British ambassador to the Vatican warned that Pope Benedict XVI’s invitation to Anglican opponents of female priests to convert en masse to Catholicism was so inflammatory that it might lead to discrimination and even violence against Catholics in Britain, according to a secret US diplomatic cable.
Talking to an American diplomat after the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, met the pope in November 2009, Francis Campbell said the surprise Vatican move had placed Williams “in an impossible situation” and “Anglican-Vatican relations were facing their worst crisis in 150 years as a result of the pope’s decision”.
Read the full text of the cable itself here.
See also this cable.
Yes. I don’t know about you, but upon hearing of the new ordinariate, my first response was: let’s head on down to St Vincent de Paul and beat up a few nuns.
There was, of course, an earlier simulation of the ‘Wiki Leaks’ scandal. It appeared among the odd philosophical maunderings of that vitriolic site ‘virtueonline’ in the United States, which purports to provide an unique perspective of the ‘Global Orthodox Anglican’ goings-on – mostly in North America. GAFCON and its associates are ill-served by this particular sort of slander: David Virtue, under the selective title of ‘satire’ has published a most scurrilous account of various supposed conversations of the TEC Presiding Bishop, which he pretends to have ‘listened in on’ and which could be the substance of litigation – if it… Read more »
How do diplomatic cables differ from blog entries?
Answer: You get paid for writing them.
How do diplomats differ from supermarket trollies?
Answer: You fill both with good things, but the trolley has a mind of its own.
‘The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating abuse of children by priests and was angered when they were summoned from Rome’ – Isn’t this aspect of the Guardian report rather more important?
@Richard Ashby. It may be more important, but it is hardly new. The refusal to respond to a request that officials of the CDF travel to Dublin to testify to the committee was widely publicised at the time. Francis Campbell’s remarks were not.
Agreed with Richard, although I think Simon was commenting on the Anglican angle of the Vatican Correspondence… Well worth reading all of it. I think ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ would particularly enjoy this quote: The harshest public criticism for the [Anglican] decision has come from a former friend of the Pope, the Swiss theologian Hans Kung… For all its color, Kung’s criticism is not influential with mainstream Catholics, according to an Embassy contact who is himself skeptical about the wisdom of the apostolic constitution. Kung, XXXXXXXXXXXX adds, comes across as personally bitter and has used such a strong language in… Read more »
“Virtue’s ‘virtue’ was certainly notable by its absence in this particular bit of social gossip.”
I don’t read Virtue at all. His vitriol and prejudice and homophobia make for a toxic mix. His wrriting about matters of sexuality is often crude. He has dissed KJS, and nastily, from the moment of her election. I am content to have others report on his doings.
Yes, Richard Ashby, I do believe the more important point is the lack of and unwillingness of the Vatican power holders to embrace TRANSPARENCY when it comes to investigations of child abuse by priests and some of the Roman Catholic bishops. This is the subject that seems to be causing so many to turn their backs on Roman Catholicism. In doing so, many are choosing to become Anglicans, at least this is so in America. The Vatican’s refusal to allow its’ own officials to testify before the Irish commission is just the tip of the iceberg on this topic. Many… Read more »
Here’s a commentator, who seems to me to be saying that what this shows is that the US diplomat didn’t understand what she was being told by the UK diplomat. That seems entirely plausible to me.
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3651
I agree – clueless diplomats are regrettable. I know nothing about this person’s background or education.
I will say that your average US college student knows next to nothing about the Reformation and the religious violence so widely practiced by all sides. They are even innocent of knowing what a bunch of bigots the early settlers of the US were.
Ask them why the Puritans came to New England and they will say ‘religious freedom.’ And of course that’s right if you agree with the Puritans. If not, not so much. Hence Rhode Island.
This simply reflects employing a Northern Irish Catholic (not trained as a diplomat)as our Ambassador to the Vatican.