Ugley controversy continues
From Trinidad comes this report in the Trinidad and Tobago Express about the withdrawal of an invitation to John Gladwin to visit there: ‘How terribly unfortunate’.
An invitation extended by the Anglican Bishop of Trinidad and Tobago, Calvin Bess, to Bishop John Gladwin of the United Kingdom to visit Trinidad has been withdrawn, after it was learnt that the latter has expressed solidarity with the pro-gay Anglican churches in Canada and the United States…
However, according to the Outlook, a mid-March story in the UK’s Telegraph newspaper indicated that a group of clergy in Britain had broken sacramental ties with Gladwin in an unprecedented revolt against his liberal views on homosexuality. The Telegraph story stated: “In what could be the start of an escalating conflict, at least eight conservative clerics have told the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev John Gladwin, that they will refuse to share Holy Communion with him.”
Gladwin reportedly responded by saying that it was his right to express his opinion and that he wanted to give space to those who were anxious about such matters.
This revelation, according to the Outlook article, was the catalyst for Bess-who has the support of the local Cathedral Chapter-to withdraw the invitation, and this was done via a letter dated April 12…
This matter was reported fully here on TA under the heading Ugley Puritans. As noted previously, the original letter to The Times simply restates the fact that the Church of England (and every member thereof, regardless of their personal opinion) is at present in communion with both the Canadian and the American provinces of the Communion.
Update Wednesday
Ruth Gledhill has reported this same Trinidad story in The Times today: Bishop told to forget Caribbean trip after airing liberal gay views. This version of events omits all mention of the Telegraph newspaper. (Those who are unable to access The Times website may find this copy useful.)
Saturday miscellany
Two bishops write in today’s newspapers:
Geoffrey Rowell on Age of Benedict must be one of Christian unity
The election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI predictably provoked anxious comment in the Western media because of his role as a defender of orthodoxy. Was he not someone who had said that non-Roman Catholic churches were not churches in the fullest sense? Yet in a fascinating conversation I had with him some three years ago he said that an ecclesial community, because it is ecclesial, must have the marks of the Church, and that Anglicans had them in a very deep way. Faced with the challenge of secularism in Europe, Christians needed each other for the work of mission: “No one of us can do it alone.” In answer to my question about how he understood the celebration of the Eucharist in churches — ecclesial communities — whose orders the Catholic Church did not recognise as valid, he replied that in such celebrations there was indeed a true feeding on Christ, and therefore there was a real and transforming grace.
I remembered that warm conversation when I studied the new Pope’s first message at the end of the conclave. He spoke of the grace of Christ in the Eucharist as that which must sustain and transform. He spoke of his own “primary commitment” and “compelling duty” to work towards “the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers”. Expressions of good feelings, he said, are not enough; concrete gestures are required, and above all “ that interior conversion which is the basis for all progress on the road of ecumenism”. All are summoned to a purification of memory to receive the full truth of Christ, whose searching judgment at the end will ask of us “what we did and what we did not do for the great good that is the full and visible unity of all His disciples.”
Kenneth Stevenson An Anglican dispatch to Rome
But just how far is Pope Benedict XVI likely to go in the wider cause of Christian unity, or indeed to build some bridges (the meaning of the word pontiff) in his own church, which, under the surface, seems as much in need of its own ecumenical movement as the Anglican communion?
My litmus test comes from some of the advice given by one of his predecessors, Pope Gregory the Great, to an earlier archbishop of Canterbury. In AD597, Augustine arrived at Canterbury from Rome with a mandate to heal the wounds of Christianity, at the time divided between Celtic, Old Roman and Frankish, and to evangelise the recently arrived Anglo-Saxons. Gregory advised him to take a moderate line with the different Christian groups, provided they worked together and accepted his authority.
But his advice about what to do with pagan temples was even more intriguing: do not knock them down, just destroy the idols inside them, and replace them with Christian symbols.
I have frequently thought about those words, as they seem to me to have a wider application. When Christianity meets new terrain, as it has done before and will do again, it needs to enter the constructs and mind-sets of the people concerned – and not destroy them. But then comes the more tricky process of ensuring that the old idols inside are replaced by Christian truth.
Of course, analogies break down. But I cannot help thinking that the new pope’s track record, the result of his early formation, is based on a profound mistrust of new ideologies.
Yes, consumerism and relativism can run riot and become their own kinds of dictatorships. But they are themselves only the demerits of what could be deeper merits – that faith has to be appropriated (not just given), and that 20th-century European history has so many deep scars that many people find it hard, if not impossible, to trust any kind of authority, which has to be at least partly won and not simply assumed.
Controversial German theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann explains why she’s glad that her former classmate has been made pope. Read this interview with her: A Humble Intellect (hat tip Andrew).
Martin Marty Considering Pope Benedict XVI
And here is A Mennonite look at the Holy See
Christopher Howse writes about a long-dead cardinal in Cardinal home from the Hill
0 CommentsRipon controversy ends
The problems reported earlier (Dean of Ripon suspended and more on Ripon) have been resolved without going to a public ecclesiastical trial.
The Church Times has: Charges dropped as Dean agrees to quit Ripon.
The diocesan press release is here.
The Yorkshire Post carried two stories by Michael Brown
‘Autocratic’ Dean quits over wine and women
Wine, women and evensong: Claims that rocked cathedral
The picture from the Yorkshire Post is captioned:
Requiem: Dean Methuen pictured at the High Altar at Ripon Cathedral, reading from the mid-13th century Latin Bible during a requiem Mass similar to the funeral service of Richard III in 1485 – part of a Richard III symposium held at the cathedral in 2002.
0 CommentsBishop Duncan: We're the Anglicans here
The Living Church carries a long interview with Robert Duncan. The full text is here.
An extract to give the flavour:
TLC: So, as a body within the Episcopal Church, what’s your “lifespan”?
Bishop Duncan: Well, of course we claim to be, constitutionally, the Episcopal Church. And there’s every evidence, both from what the Windsor Report says and what the primates said in accepting it, in their communiqué in Northern Ireland, that we are the Anglicans. If the Episcopal Church’s constitution says that we’ll be constituent members of the Anglican Communion, and the Anglican Communion now says, Episcopal Church, you’re in time out. In fact, you’re not only in time out, but it appears you’re making a decision to walk apart. If in General Convention 2006 the Episcopal Church determines to walk apart, then the question we ask is, who is the Episcopal Church? And our legal basis will be to say, we are, of course, because they have broken the constitution.
TLC: Do you think General Convention will be the turning point?
Bishop Duncan: Oh, yeah. The Presiding Bishop has made it clear, and he made it clear in Northern Ireland, that this church has thought about this, prayed about this, and is committed to this course, and there’ll be no turning back. And I think he reads the situation right. We also believe there’ll be no turning back. We intend, one of the issues for us going into General Convention, and we will be in General Convention, is to attempt to force this Church to make a very clear decision, unmistakably clear as to whether they’re going to walk with the Communion and repent from these actions, return to standard Anglican practice, or really going to move forward. They call it moving forward; we call it walking apart.
If they determine to move out, well, then they’ve determined to move out. We’re the Anglicans here. We’ll also stand in a way that says, we’re the Episcopal Church where we are. You know, there’ll be infinite court battles, but it’ll be very interesting, since the Communion will have said the Episcopal Church walked apart, and the Episcopal Church’s Constitution says that you’ve got to be constituent members, and we’re the only ones they recognize as constituent members, so who’s the Episcopal Church, legally? It’ll be very interesting time. I mean, we don’t want to go to court, but it’s quite clear the Episcopal Church is always ready to go to court, and this time I think they might not be so willing to go to court, because we think there’s every reason they’ll lose.
Some further analysis and quite a lot of comments on this can be found at The Questioning Christian in two posts: The Revolutionaries (Finally?) Hoist Their Flag and Bishop Duncan Needs Better Lawyers. Additionally, Fr Jake has comments here. For comments from conservatives, read titusonenine.
More critique
Mark Harris has now weighed in with Emerging Corporate Megalomania
Rowan Williams writes to ECUSA/Canadian bishops
It’s worth noting another letter that has been part-published. In the Anglican Journal report on the Canadian bishops’ statement, the following also appears:
Archbishop Williams… also sent a letter to the joint meeting of the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA) which began April 28 – to which he had earlier been invited to attend but which he declined attending citing previous engagements.
In his letter, which the Canadian primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, read aloud, Archbishop Williams said he remained “hopeful” that the Anglican Communion, deeply divided over the issue of homosexuality, could still move forward together.
“The recent primates’ statement has, I know, been hard for many to hear. But what it represents is an attempt to hold some space for us all to decide where our future lies in regard to the (Anglican) Communion; to think about how we act with the goal of allowing our relations in Christ to develop, not to cut off the possibilities of moving together,” he wrote. “It undoubtedly challenges people on different sides of the current debate; essentially we are trying to find a way of moving forward as a church, not as a collection of interest groups of ‘left’ or ‘right.’”
He added that the primates’ statement “also represents a deep reluctance all round to move hastily in the direction of separation.”
The Anglican Communion’s present situation, he added, “is in some ways nothing new: we are always living between testimony to God’s overwhelming and unsurpassable gift and our own countertestimony of confusion or faithlessness.”
Archbishop Williams said he could not offer “an easy solution to our tensions,” adding, “that would be presumptuous.” But he added, “I can only send my greetings and prayers as a brother in this confused environment, and urge you all to look to the Lord of the church for patience, mercy and renewal.”
Canadian and American bishops welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter, which had come as a surprise. Archbishop Hutchison had earlier admitted to being stung by Archbishop Williams’ decision not to attend the joint meeting, saying he took it to mean the Archbishop of Canterbury did not wish to be associated with the beleaguered Canadian and American Anglicans.
The Living Church has reported that:
Over 40 American bishops and the secretary general of the ACC, Canon Kenneth Kearon, joined the Canadian bishops at dinner on April 27. Originally scheduled to attend the joint meeting of American and Canadian bishops, Archbishop Rowan Williams withdrew from the dinner following the primates’ meeting in Dromantine, saying it would be inappropriate for him to attend given the present estrangement between the North American Churches and the rest of the Anglican Communion. (TLC, March 27)
I can find no public record of Rowan Williams saying anything like this, not even in TLC’s own report.
1 CommentCanadian bishops issue statement
Updated Friday, and again Saturday
The following statement was unanimously adopted by the Canadian House of Bishops meeting in Windsor, Ont., on April 27.
Statement of Commitment by the Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada April 27,2005
This is their response to the Windsor Report and the Dromantine communiqué.
The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the statement.
The statement was reported by Reuters as Canadian Anglicans Skirt Requests Over Gay Unions in a story which erroneously attributes the US decision on their ACC attendance to the American HoB rather than their Executive Council. The Canadian decision-making body on that issue is the Council of General Synod which meets May 6-8.
Further press coverage
Anglican Journal Bishops agree to hold off on blessings
Toronto Globe and Mail Anglican bishops call moratorium on same-sex blessings
Religion News Service via Beliefnet Canada’s Anglican Bishops Agree to Moratorium on Gay Unions
The Living Church Canadian Bishops Won’t Halt Blessings of Same-Sex Unions
The Times Ruth Gledhill Rebel bishops reconsider same-sex blessings
The reports are a little confusing. In fact, the situation in New Westminster, which is the only Canadian diocese where SSB are at present formally authorised, is unchanged, but will be reviewed at the diocesan synod which meets on May 13 and 14:
Attracting the most media attention will be synod’s discussion on Saturday afternoon on how to respond to the Windsor Report, a document authored by an international group of Anglicans for the Archbishop of Canterbury, which tried to define the nature of Anglicanism.
One item in the Windsor Report is a call for a moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions until the next Lambeth Conference in 2008.
A proposed response is being put together by the Revs. Richard Leggett and John Oakes. The two priests, respectively at Vancouver School of Theology and Holy Trinity, Vancouver, come from the opposite ends of the theological spectrum, but together plan to come up with a single proposal.
A pre-synod session on April 16 at which the two men presented a draft response drew more than half of synod delegates, showing high interest in the issue.
Volunteering some of their time during school spring break to help prepare packages of papers for Synod delegates were Jen Nurse of St. George’s, Fort Langley, Stephanie McGee of St. Helen’s, Surrey, and Cara Ingham of St. Mary’s Kerrisdale.
Indicating national interest in New Westminster’s decision will be the presence of Canadian Primate Andrew Hutchison. He will preach at the opening worship Friday morning, and serve as the “synod partner” for the gathering.
At the Canadian House of Bishops meeting that Archbishop Hutchison chaired on April 27, Bishop Michael Ingham along with his 40 colleagues agreed “neither to encourage nor to initiate” the blessing rite until the national Canadian General Synod in 2007.
Bishop Ingham afterwards said that the phrase “neither to encourage nor to initiate” comes from a communiqué issued by Anglican Primates in February, and has been interpreted to mean there should be no further actions beyond those already started.
“I made it explicitly clear to the Canadian House that, in view of the upcoming Synod in New Westminster, I could sign the statement issued today only on the understanding that I would be governed very much by the advice of my own Synod,” said the bishop.
Further update
The Anglican Journal has published this article Council advised to decline primates’ call. This refers to a report reported much earlier.
more Roman reports
Two other sources of information about recent Anglican visitors to Rome:
The RC Diocese of Westminster has published excerpts from the press conference that Archbishop Rowan Williams and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor held on 25 April.
Anglicans Online has published Pierre Whalon’s Dispatch from Rome which also discusses the papal audience of that morning. Pierre Whalon’s earlier report was on the Sunday inauguration: Dispatch from St Peter’s Basilica.
Additional Item
Reuters has a video clip of the papal audience in which RW’s interaction with the Pope is clearly shown. This may not work correctly in some browsers: it worked for me in Internet Explorer 6 on WinXP. The Reuters video page has a strip marked Vatican Channel and the clip is labelled Pope Meets Religious Leaders.
ENS catches up
Anglican leaders meet with Pope Benedict XVI
Rowan Williams preaches for Christian Aid
Rowan Williams preached today at St Paul’s Cathedral. The service was to mark the sixtieth anniversary of Christian Aid.
The full text of the sermon is here.
The Lambeth Palace press release is here: Archbishop condemns lack of trust in fight against poverty.
The Christian Aid press release is here: Archbishop backs trade campaign at Christian Aid anniversary service.
NACDAP provokes responses
Following a recent meeting in Texas, NACDAP has issued two documents: ACN Council Communiqué and Windsor Action Covenant.
This has provoked several strong responses: The Fat is in the Fire: The Network and the Windsor Action Covenant and also Windsor, DOA. But clearest of all is this from the Bishop of California, Bill Swing: The House of Bishops: All for One and Some for Something. Some extracts from these:
Bill Swing asks NACDAP these questions:
1. Why do you usually avoid House of Bishops meetings? And why will you not go to the altar rail and receive Communion alongside your sister and brother bishops?
2. Rumor has it that you receive lots of money from private foundations and give it to support African bishops who, in turn, will attack the Episcopal Church. Is there an audit of your receipts and disbursements? Could I review it? What are the goals of the foundations that financially support you? What African bishops receive your money? What American Episcopalians whom you know are on the staffs of African bishops?
3. If the bishops of the Episcopal Church are not invited to Lambeth Conference 2008 but the Network bishops with Bishop Robert Duncan as head are invited, will you attend?
4. What are the names of Network bishops who have consulted lawyers to ascertain the possibilities of someday separating “Network properties” from “Episcopal Church properties?”
5. In what situations around the USA is the Network in conversation with individual congregations, strategizing as to how the congregation can leave the Episcopal Church, take its assets, and join the Network?
6. It is stated that Bishop Duncan is on record as promising “to wage guerilla warfare on the Episcopal Church.” Is this true? Also on the House floor he has been accused of paying lay people of his diocese to go to a neighboring diocese to try to persuade conservative members to leave the Episcopal Church and join the Network. Is that true?
Mark Harris writes:
This Covenant is an attempt to hijack the Windsor Report and make it the instrument of the realignment effort. It is yet another effort to spin an advisory committee’s report into a partisan litmus test.
…All of this would be of no great import if it were not for the last pledge, not bulleted, which is the real basis of the covenant, and its only focus. That last pledge states, “If General Convention chooses finally to walk apart, I will not follow, but will remain a faithful Anglican, God being my helper.”
This then is the opening salvo of the battle of General Convention. One may be sure that the Network will come to Convention with pledge lists of persons who they contend will not be bound by General Convention action IF the Convention “chooses finally to walk apart.” And of course, it will be the Network and its leadership that will want to determine if General Convention has so chosen.
This Covenant is a marshalling of numbers, and an attempt to get members of this Church to pledge disavowal of actions of General Convention, leadership of the bishops of their dioceses, if not viewed as “Windsor Dioceses” and teaching of their clergy, if not viewed as “Windsor Parishes.” Its purpose is to implement resistance to any leadership other than that of the realignment groups, and in particular the Network itself.
The fat is in the fire and the play is unfolding. It is time to be watchful. It is not a time to be nice, for these are not nice times.
J-Tron notes:
21 CommentsIt’s heart breaking. It really is. The Windsor Report has some deep flaws. But I have remained hopeful that it can be a starting point, a place to facilitate communication and unity. Certainly the folks who produced it had that hope for it. The Network does not. It chooses instead to use Windsor as a weapon, a method of labeling and relabeling those who it dislikes. This is an especially interesting development considering the Network’s own deep criticism of Windsor in the days after it came out. Now all of a sudden the Network wants to embrace Windsor, but only in so far as it pushes us forward into the rift.
…But the enemy that presents itself in the Network is not that of ultra-conservatism or homophobia. The enemy that presents itself in the Network is the evil of pride, deceit, lust for power, and a thorough drive to divide the Church. Not all members of the Network are engaged in this kind of behavior, but the Network perpetrates it on behalf of all who it calls “orthodox,” leaving those on the so-called right who truly wish to be in communion without a voice.
I call on Anglicans and Episcopalians of good conscience, whatever their political stripes or feelings about human sexuality, to reject the evil, schismatic vision that the Network is trying to perpetrate. If we have to split in the end, let it be because we have tried every possible remedy, every conceivable avenue of dialogue, and nothing else seems like it can be done. Let it not be because a small group of the power hungry possessed swept us into armageddon like battle with our friends and neighbors for the purpose of fulfilling their own ambitions….
Anglicans meet the Pope
Various reports concerning the inauguration of the new pope yesterday and his meeting today with ecumenical leaders including an Anglican delegation that included two ECUSA bishops as well as several prominent Anglican conservatives.
BBC
Anglican leaders greet new Pope
Catholic News Service
Anglican leader says pope to give energy to united Christian witness includes extensive quotes from RW
Guardian
Andrew Brown Opus Dei will be in the ascendancy in Pope Benedict XVI’s church
John Hooper in Rome and Stephen Bates Williams to meet new pope today
The Times
Richard Owen New Pope seeks a spiritual revival as he takes the throne
Ruth Gledhill Words of inspiration not lost in translation
Addition
Richard Owen Pope prayed: ‘God, don’t do this to me’
Telegraph
Jonathan Petre Williams looks to build bridges with Catholicism
Bruce Johnson Humanity has lost its way, says new Pope
Sunday Telegraph
Damian Thompson Then came the name ‘Josephum’ and gloom set in
Sunday Times
Christopher Morgan and John Follain Pope in talks with rebel Anglicans
And for a different perspective, Appointment of Pope Benedict sits uneasily with Arabs on Aljazeera.com
Update
An earlier column that I missed: Andrew Brown on opendemocracy.org Cardinal Chernenko?
letters between bishops
Update a public statement by the Bishop of Dallas has been published here
Some correspondence has emerged:
- The Living Church published this dated 21 April: Letters Express Bishops’ Concerns to Archbishop of Canterbury, Presiding Bishop
- Episcopal News Service published this on the same day: Griswold asks bishops for clarification on letters.
The Living Church reports:
In the May 1 print issue of the magazine, TLC reported that the April 6 letter to Archbishop Williams was written to clarify some points made in a letter which was hand-delivered to him following the March 11-16 House of Bishops’ meeting at Camp Allen in Navasota, Texas.
The two letters of 6 April were signed by a total of 21 bishops, including 18 diocesan bishops (there are 100 domestic US dioceses plus several overseas dioceses within The Episcopal Church). The letter to Rowan Williams asks for a meeting at the end of May. No mention of this letter or request is included in the other letter to Frank Griswold.
The signatures include the diocesans of 10 out of 11 of the “NACDAP” dioceses (Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy, Rio Grande, San Joaquin, South Carolina, Springfield, Western Kansas.), except Keith Ackerman of Quincy, and also two suffragans and an assistant bishop serving in NACDAP dioceses.
They also include 8 other diocesans who do not belong to NACDAP:
- David Bane Diocese of Southern Virginia
- James Folts Diocese of West Texas
- Bertram Herlong Diocese of Tennessee
- Edward Little Diocese of Northern Indiana
- John Lipscomb Diocese of Southwest Florida
- Bruce MacPherson Diocese of Western Louisiana
- Wallis Ohl Diocese of Northwest Texas
- Don Wimberly Diocese of Texas
The research mentioned in the letters can be found here.
The Living Church has published a further item.
0 CommentsConnecticut update
Further Update 27 April
This commentary has been published by Via Media USA
Update 25 April
There is an editorial in the Living Church about Connecticut: Harsh Treatment
Many thanks to commenters who posted links to news reports on this last week, while I was away from home.
The New York Times carried several reports:
22 April Dissident Priests Not Punished, but Their Fate Is Still Unclear
21 April Dissident Episcopal Priests Are Called Part of a Strategy
18 April Episcopal Clergy to Meet on Dispute Over Gay Issues
In the 21 April story, we read this:
…But as the bishop of Connecticut, Andrew D. Smith, prepared to suspend the priests, he described them as local troops in a nationwide strategy by conservative Episcopalians to secede and then establish a “replacement” church that would take the place of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. in the world Anglican Communion.
In an interview at his office in Hartford on Tuesday, the day after a meeting with the priests that seemed only to deepen the impasse, Bishop Smith said that the priests never had any intention of returning to the fold. Instead, he said, they were bent on “kind of a ‘Please, go ahead and shoot me’ ” approach that would make him a villain and win them public support.
Bishop Smith said the priests were following a strategy laid out in a memo written in December 2003 by a member of the American Anglican Council, a group of orthodox Episcopal parishes that includes those led by the six priests. The memo laid out steps that priests can take to distance and then eventually sever themselves from the parent church.
The memo said the strategy would “generate significant public attention” and added that the church authorities, knowing “well how conservatives could quickly become the ‘victims’ in the public mind,” would be reluctant to discipline priests.
“If you read that memo and then look at what happened there, there are a lot of similarities,” Bishop Smith said…
Meanwhile, the AAC republished the whole story from the NYT and also this press release.
The News page of the Connecticut diocesan website contains many useful links to statements, including a pdf copy of the letter of 27 May 2004 from the six parishes in which they list their demands:
- We seek the immediate care and pastoral oversight of a bishop acceptable to us who:
a) affirms Holy Scripture, the ancient creeds, and the 39 Articles.
b) Upholds the 1998 Lambeth Resolution on human sexuality.
c) Neither supported the election, consecration and ministry of V. G. Robinson as bishop, nor supports the ordination of any unchaste homosexuals to ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.
- We seek suspension without prejudice of the canons and resolutions of the Diocese of Connecticut requiring an assessment of funds in support of diocesan mission and ministry.
- We seek a one-year review of these DEPO Agreements in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates of the Anglican Communion or their appointed designee,
- We seek a written agreement that guarantees that the future succession of clergy in our parishes rests in the hands of the vestries, our search committees, and our DEPO bishop.
- We seek a written assurance that you and the Diocese of Connecticut will not foster a ministerial environment that is hostile to our parishes’ mission and ministries.
more pope stuff
This weekend Rowan Williams visits Rome again, this time for the inauguration of the new pope. Earlier reports were incorrect, and he is in fact the second modern archbishop to attend such an event. The first was Donald Coggan in 1978.
Meanwhile, some more commentary on the new pope from British newspapers this week:
In the Guardian:
Stephen Bates Back to the future with Joseph Ratzinger
Andrew Brown The last pope from Europe
Julian Baggini Grey matters
Mark Lawson Holier than thou
In The Times:
Stephen Plant Prophecies and the challenges that follow
…Yet, writing in 1995, that modern-day Cassandra, the liberal historian Felipe Fernández-Armesto, already foresaw Benedict’s election (or that of someone very like him) and with it the challenge he must now take up: “The effect (of Christian fundamentalism) will be mitigated if the Catholic Church — the world’s biggest and most widespread communion — keeps up what may become a unique commitment to moral absolutism in defence of human dignity, individual freedom, social justice and the sanctity of life. Yet the tempters who are always cajoling the Pope to compromise will probably triumph — not when the present pontiff dies, because the long life in office of John Paul II has strengthened the moral fibre of the cardinalate, but in the next pontificate after that.”
The first part of Fernández-Armesto’s prophecy is likely to be unpopular with anyone who cannot tell the difference between intolerance and the steadfast defence of absolute truth, or who are liable to mistake moral and theological precision for the ruthless maintenance of tradition. In this camp is pretty much everyone, Catholic and Protestant, agnostic and atheist, who thinks that the Vatican’s consistent anti-modernism is a terrible hindrance to human progress. But the second part of Fernández-Armesto’s prophecy will upset those who believe that because the Church has resisted modernity in the past it can go on doing so in the future…
Daniel Johnson The best man for the job
As usual, the BBC got the story all wrong. The task for the new Pope is not to take sides between liberals and conservatives. Nor was that the choice the cardinals faced in this extraordinarily rapid conclave. All cardinals are, by definition, conservative.
No, the great issue for Pope Benedict XVI is the one that he set out in his remarkable sermon at the preconclave Mass in St Peter’s. Does he wish to lead the Church down the primrose path of secularism, following the Christian heartlands of Europe in their descent into moral relativism, or does he intend to turn towards the new missionary Church of Latin America, Africa and Asia, to reaffirm the faith of Christ, the faith of St Peter, the faith of John Paul II? That is the real choice.
What the fight against communism was for John Paul II, the fight against rampant secularism will be for Benedict XVI. And all those anti-papist commentators who protested at the attention given to John Paul II’s illness, death and funeral will be gnashing their teeth once battle commences.
…Pope Ratzinger will be even more controversial than his predecessor. He began life under the Weimar Republic, which collapsed because it took moral relativism to extremes and succumbed to the secular ideologies of Left and Right.
…Where I do expect movement during the Ratzinger pontificate is on ecumenical relations with the Orthodox and perhaps also Protestant churches. The last Pope opened up this Pandora’s box, bringing several of the smaller Eastern churches back into the Catholic fold. If the battle against the intolerance of secularism is to be won, Benedict XVI will have to find a way of reaching out to his fellow Christians to make common cause…
Richard Owen Myths, challenges and censure: Pope Benedict XVI gets to work
…Setting out his vision for his papacy as he celebrated his first Mass as pontiff in the Sistine Chapel, Pope Benedict told the cardinals who elected him on Tuesday that he would reach out to other religions such as Islam — provided that there was “reciprocity” — and continue to implement the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
In gold and white vestments, seated before Michelangelo’s Last Judgment and speaking in Latin, the man who once dismissed other Christian churches as improper said that his primary task was to work to reunify all Christians and that sentiment alone was not enough.
“Concrete acts that enter souls and move consciences are needed,” he said. He wanted “an open and sincere dialogue” with other religions and would do everything to promote the ecumenical cause, a reference not only to Anglicans but also to Orthodox Christians…
In the Telegraph:
Charles Moore Pope Benedict has a sense of history
Christopher Howse The Pope and Luther agree
In the Independent:
Catherine Pepinster A German Pope chosen to save Europe
Developments in Connecticut
The AAC and NACDAP have issued two statements concerning the dispute in Connecticut between the bishop and six conservative parishes.
First, this one announces that six prominent NACDAP/AAC clergypersons will preach this Sunday, one in each of the six parishes.
…Bishop Smith accuses the six of “abandonment of communion,” even though he has failed to provide evidence to support his charge and ignored the plea by Anglican Church leaders for restraint and latitude on the part of American bishops in conflict with their priests on fundamental issues of Anglican theology. Bishop Smith supports theological innovations regarding human sexuality embraced by the 2003 General Convention of the Episcopal Church that are contrary to Scripture, to the traditional teaching of Anglicanism, and to positions firmly supported by the leadership of the Anglican Church comprising over 70 million members worldwide. The six Connecticut clergy and congregations targeted by Bishop Smith are biblically orthodox and remain faithful to apostolic faith and order upheld by the worldwide Anglican Communion…
Second, this one is an open letter from a total of seventeen NACDAP/AAC-related bishops (12 of them diocesans) addressed to the bishop and the standing committee of the Diocese of Connecticut.
12 Comments…What are we to do? We have agreed as bishops not to cross diocesan boundaries. But was not this moratorium based on other moratoria being observed as well, and on the maintenance of status quo as regards actions against the conservative minority? Were not the commitments we made to one another at the March meeting of the House of Bishops also based on the assumption of the functioning of the Panel of Reference, called for by the Primates in February 2005? And was it not notification of their intent to appeal to the Panel of Reference by the six parishes, given by letter to the Bishop of Connecticut, that immediately precipitated the threat of inhibition and deposition of the clergy of those parishes?
We also ask: was Title IV, Canon 10, intended to be used against clergy who have resolutely maintained their commitment to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, as these clergy have? What about due process and right to ecclesiastical trials, both of which are denied when this Canon on Abandonment of Communion is used in this way? Who is it that has abandoned the Communion?
This is a painful letter for us to write. We pose much of this letter as questions. Is there some way to head off the terrible confrontation that now appears inevitable, not only in Connecticut, but also among us bishops? Please know that we are more than eager to be part of the resolution of this crisis in every appropriate way.
“The whole world is watching”, as we used to observe in the sixties. We do not seem to be commending the faith that is in us in any way that the watching world can appreciate or fathom. Whatever shall we do to reverse the course of the scandal that besets us?
ECUSA decides about Nottingham
Yet Another Two Updates
The Bishop of Pittsburgh doesn’t like it either. He has issued A Statement from the Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network.
What the response of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council to the 2005 Primates’ Communique gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. While it gives an appearance of complying with the Primates’ request, in actuality it does not. The Primates asked the ECUSA delegation to withdraw from the Anglican Consultative Council (AAC) – the only appropriate response is therefore to stay at home.
The American Anglican Council doesn’t like it at all, see this statement which includes:
The Executive Council’s letter to the Anglican Consultative Council is manipulative and deceptive. The Primates were clear and direct in their call to the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada:
“…we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion.” (cf. paragraph 8)
While the language of the Communiqué is gracious and diplomatic, the intent is crystal clear—the American and Canadian Churches have been told to stand down from the Anglican Consultative Council. In addition, they have been presented with a clear choice to permanently walk together or walk apart. The parameters for “walking together” are also definitive: the Episcopal Church must repent of its heretical actions and embrace once more in word and in practice the faith and order of Anglicanism. We cannot accept that the Executive Council does not understand what the Primates have requested, and therefore we must assume that this is a deliberate plan to circumvent and ignore the full intent of the Communiqué.
The Executive Council is setting up an opportunity to lobby and influence the ACC meeting. Given the fact that ECUSA is insisting on such a presence, it seems a matter of justice and fair play that those who are excluded from ECUSA and isolated because they stand against revisionism should also be present and “available for conversation and consultation”. We call upon the Anglican Consultative Council to deny the Executive Council’s request; however, if the ECUSA delegation attends, we believe it is critical to include voices that offer a very different perspective, one that is consistent with Scripture and the accepted faith and order of the Anglican Communion.
No mention at all by the NACDAP Moderator or by the AAC of this paragraph in the communiqué:
16. Notwithstanding the request of paragraph 14 of this communiqué, we encourage the Anglican Consultative Council to organize a hearing at its meeting in Nottingham, England, in June 2005 at which representatives of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada, invited for that specific purpose, may have an opportunity to set out the thinking behind the recent actions of their Provinces, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the Windsor Report.
Clearly a significant disagreement then between both of them and the ABC:
Further Update
Archbishop of Canterbury commends Executive Council letter
In a communication to Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams extended thanks to the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council for its decision to withdraw its three American members from official participation in the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham, England in June.
“I have just received the news of the decision about ACC. Thank you all,” Williams said. “I can guess how hard it will have been, but you have acted very generously and constructively and I hope this will bear the fruit that it should…”
The Executive Council of ECUSA has decided to withdraw its representatives from official participation in the ACC at Nottingham this June. The full statement is published by ENS here. The key paragraph is:
We are mindful that Christ has made us members of one body, and that no part can say to any other “I have no need of you.” At the same time we wish to express our openness to the concerns and beliefs of others. In the spirit of the Covenant Statement recently adopted by our House of Bishops, we voluntarily withdraw our members from official participation in the ACC as it meets in Nottingham. As an expression of our desire “to bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2), we are asking our members to be present at the meeting to listen to reports on the life and ministry we share across the Communion and to be available for conversation and consultation.
Update Press coverage of this:
Associated Press Episcopalians accept no-delegates request and also this squib
Knight Ridder/Chicago Tribune U.S. Episcopal Church to sit out council over issue of gay bishops
Reuters U.S. church withdraws from key Anglican body
New York Times (This report also deals with another current American story) Connecticut Episcopalians Defy Bishop Over Gay Issues
Living Church Observers Will Attend ACC Meeting
Anglican Journal
U.S. church will bow out of international meeting
A first-hand account of the meeting on a blog
48 CommentsSunday papers
Sunday Times
John Cornwell Fight for the soul of the church
Bryan Appleyard The world bids farewell
Independent on Sunday
Peter Popham Show of devotion sways cardinals’ choice
Lucy Lethbridge Rome clears up after the millions who came to take part in a piece of history
Sunday Telegraph
David Willey (of the BBC) Behind the elaborate protocol, a naked power struggle begins
Kevin Myers Two, four, six, eight: time to transubstantiate
Observer
David Aaronovitch A papal morality tale for a moral age
Peter Beaumont Now the search begins
Economist
Well, can’t link to it, but GetReligion has this:
Let’s elect a British pope
Pope: funeral reports
Guardian
John Hooper The final farewell
Stephen Bates Close encounters of a diplomatic kind
The Times
Richard Owen Faithful demand instant sainthood
Ruth Gledhill Commentary: the cult of John Paul will ensure his sainthood
Telegraph
Jonathan Petre Make him a saint the people cry as, watched by the world, Pope John Paul II is laid to rest
Independent
Peter Popham Sea of mourners bid farewell with tears and cheers
BBC
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan WIlliams talked, on the Today Programme yesterday to Edward Stourton of the Pope John Paul II. Real Audio required. Listen here
Update
Bishop John Flack’s diary for the week
other related material
Pope: weekend opinion roundup
Newspapers writing about the Pope:
Leader in the Guardian Pole of Poles
Leader in The Times Power of faith
Leader in the Telegraph Christianity in a Godless age
Christopher Howse The Victorian way of death
Jonathan Sacks John Paul’s blow against a virus of the soul
The Tablet has an article by the Italian commentator Marco Politi
A man ill at ease in his own century
More Tablet articles here
Nigerian primate issues two statements
Two formal statements were issued on 7 April 2005 by Archbishop Peter Akinola the Primate of All Nigeria.
A WORD TO NIGERIAN ANGLICANS IN NORTH AMERICA
In the first of these he says:
10 CommentsI now write to you in response to the recent Covenant statement from ECUSA’s House of Bishops during their spring meeting in Camp Allen, Texas and also because there have been a number of misleading reports about the recent Primates’ meeting in Northern Ireland.
While the statement issued by ECUSA’s House of Bishops expressed a desire to remain in the life and mission of the Anglican Communion, I was disappointed that the only regret offered was for their failure to consult and the effect of their actions instead of an admission that what they have done has offended God and His Church. As was pointed out in the Primates Communiqué issued in February ‘the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered.” ECUSA has yet to grasp this reality and still appears to be chasing shadows. Until this is recognized there can be no hope of meaningful reconciliation.
The statement answered the call for a moratorium with regard to the ordinations of non-celibate homosexuals with a pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any bishop until 2006 – I find this response to be disingenuous since it holds the entire church to ransom for the sin of a few. While they have claimed to answer the call for moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions we know that there are Dioceses where the clergy are still continuing the practice of blessing same-sex partnerships with the Bishops’ explicit permission. I find this duplicitous and I would point out that the underlying issue is not a temporary cessation of these practices but a decision to renounce them and demonstrate a willing embrace of the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted throughout the Communion and described in Lambeth Resolution 1.10.
With regard to the Primates meeting in Ireland I find it highly offensive to hear claims that a group of us were influenced by external forces into taking stands that we would not otherwise have taken. There is absolutely no merit to these claims and I am saddened that there are those who wish to perpetuate this malevolent falsehood. Our actions and agreements were the result of prayerful deliberation and principled conviction. The idea that orthodox Americans manipulated us is an insult – in truth we in the Global South have been challenging them to stand firm. And there were a number of us who felt that the recommendations did not go far enough but out of respect for the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury we were willing to leave space for serious reflection and genuine repentance.
I was appalled by statements claiming that the devil was wandering the halls of the Dromantine Retreat Center – perhaps those who make such observations should first look within themselves before they accuse others. Many of us believe that what we achieved in our time together was due to the work of God’s Holy Spirit and to claim otherwise is blasphemous.
I have noted with disappointment that there are those in ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada who are suggesting that these Provinces should defy the Primates’ request that they voluntarily withdraw their members from the next meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council. I would urge the appointed leadership of these Provinces to weigh seriously the consequences of such actions if indeed there is to be any hope of the reconciliation and healing that we all seek. Moreover I believe that it is an accurate sense of our meeting to say that the Primates do not expect ECUSA and the Canadian church to participate in ANY of the structures of the Communion until they have chosen to respect the mind of the Communion. Until they decide to return – something for which we earnestly pray – the sad truth is that they have walked away from the Communion.
Finally, I need to address the important matter of provincial and diocesan boundaries. As I have repeatedly reaffirmed maintaining good order is important for the work of the Gospel but it can never be used to silence those who are standing for the Faith and resisting doctrinal error. It was our common understanding in Newry that the extraordinary pastoral relationships and initiatives now underway would be maintained until this crisis is resolved. If, however, the measures proposed in our Communiqué to protect the legitimate needs of groups in serious theological disputes prove to be ineffectual, and if acts of oppression against those who seek to uphold our common faith persist, then we will have no choice but to offer safe harbour for those in distress.
Pope: Friday
Guardian
Stephen Bates 2bn to watch service and Pope’s will reveals he thought of resigning
From 5 April, and not linked here previously, Stephen Moss on Keeping the faith
Telegraph
Bruce Johnston and Jonathan Petre Burial will be marked by solemnity and splendour and Pope’s will tells how he considered resigning
Tom Utley Weddings, funerals and elections need ritual to give them dignity
The Times
Ruth Gledhill Now retirement at 80 seems even less likely
BBC
Alex Kirby John Paul II and the Anglicans