Pope Rowan?

I will let Romish bloggers wade through the details.  But Pope Francis’ Extraordinary Synod on the Family has issued a statement - a Relatio is the Popish name for it – that among other problematic things recommends that gay orientation is to be “valued” in the church.

I am sorely tempted to insist my still randy heterosexual orientation be valued, too.  But I will instead point out a pattern I have noticed.  In this particular case, orthodox Roman Catholic bloggers have run to their keyboards to say this is not as bad as it looks at first glance.  They have said the Relatio is not a final statement. (True.) That there may be a misunderstanding due to translation.  That press reports are wrong.  That the statement does not reflect the views of all the bishops. (True.)

But this is not the first time I’ve seen this sort of episode.  Not only have we seen this under Francis, we saw it again and again under the Archbishopric of Rowan Williams, to wit:

1. Rowan/Francis or allies act or speak in a manner that undermines orthodoxy or the orthodox.

2. Orthodox who project their wishes onto Rowan/Francis and have a reservoir of good will toward him spin the act/statement into something not so bad.  Moreover, they may read something positive between the lines or behind the scenes. (And I recall that I did this myself in more hopeful days for the Anglican Communion. - ed.)

And that Rowan emitted a lot of fog and that Francis speaks freely and off-the-collar in unofficial settings certainly gives room for the orthodox to create positive interpretations and calming disclaimers.  Moreover, Rowan and Francis are likeable personalities.  Heck, I still like Rowan Williams in a way even as I deplore what he did to the Anglican Communion.  It is natural for Christians of good will to give them the benefit of the doubt and more.

Further neither Rowan nor Francis discourage(d) the orthodox in their wishful spin.  They may even make noises to encourage it.

3. Rinse.  Repeat.

4. But, alas, the passage of time and/or a more final act/statement dashes the hopes of the orthodox.  It turns out the leadership of Rowan/Francis really was as bad as feared with distressing consequences for the church.  And all that orthodox spin is exposed as wishful thinking indeed.

With Rowan, it got to this point by Lambeth 2008, if not before, when he invited all the consecrators of Gene Robinson and turned Lambeth into a useless indaba session rightly boycotted by over 200 bishops.

We have not yet gotten to such a point (i.e. 4.) with Francis.  Nor do I ever expect 200 bishops to boycott an invitation from him or any similar RC split.  But I see the same pattern with him and the orthodox as I saw with Rowan Williams.  And I do expect that one day Francis or a gathering under him will act or speak in such as way and with enough finality that it will gravely wound the orthodoxy and the orthodox of the Roman Catholic Church.

So forgive me if I call him Pope Rowan. 

I do honestly hope I am proven to be mistaken and unfair in so doing.  I pray Francis does not prove himself worthy to be called much worse.

Justin Welby and Lambeth 2018

Earlier this week came news that Lambeth 2018, the decadal meeting of Anglican Communion bishops, has been postponed indefinitely or cancelled.

I think Justin Welby is doing the right thing to not insist on having Lambeth 2018 on schedule.  To have a repeat of Lambeth 2008, a big useless indaba session rightly boycotted by over 200 bishops, would be an expensive exercise in pointlessness that would confirm the divisions in the Anglican Communion.

Perhaps it would be better if he proceeded with Lambeth while not inviting a number of apostates, particularly the consecrators of Gene Robinson.  But if he were that hardline (as I am), he would not have been made Archbishop of Canterbury, now would he.

No, the one to blame is his predecessor, Rowan Williams.  For years, while pretending to be even-handed, he strung along the orthodox then sided with apostates when he had to make an actual decision.  He even undermined the Primates Meetings to do so.  Here’s a post from 2007 to give a flavor of that.

Then when he issued his invitations for Lambeth 2008, although he did not invite Gene Robinson himself, he invited all his consecrators, and thereby invited the boycott that followed.  Once again he chose the apostates over the orthodox.  In addition, he infamously structured Lambeth with indaba so that no real decisions could be made, further protecting apostasy. 

In effect, when presented with the unavoidable choice between a robustly orthodox but slightly smaller communion and a weak, muddled, and much smaller communion, Rowan Williams chose the latter.  Brilliant.

And the Anglican Communion has not recovered from that – and perhaps never will.

So, yes, I think Justin Welby should be more hardline against apostasy and for a robustly orthodox Anglican Communion.  But I cannot blame him for the current divisions.  And he deserves credit for not pretending “All is well,” for not going forward with Lambeth 2018.

----

Housekeeping: Thanks to a kind reader for correcting my brain typo.  It's Gene Robinson (not Robertson, gah!).  Now corrected.

Justin Welby Did See and Authorize Statement Praising Schori

I have not posted about it here, but many of my informed readers are aware that a statement was issued under Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby’s name praising TEC Presiding “Bishop” Katharine Schori for her “compassion” and putting her forth as a role model no less.

The statement was so divorced from the reality of her ravenous persecution of the faithful that some suggested said statement was issued by Lambeth bureaucrats without the explicit approval of Welby.

But Lambeth has since shot down that theory.  Peter Ould has passed on that they were “incredibly quick to tell me that ++Justin had seen and authorised the statement.”

And it is an outrageous and offensive statement so to praise such an apostate willful persecutor of the faithful as a compassionate role model.  I most certainly am outraged.

Long time readers know I was no fan of Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury.  But Justin Welby may use up my last straw faster than Dr. Williams.  (And, for the record, Rowan used up my straw in September 2007.)

Henricus Sixtus Rex Ora Pro Nobis! (At Kings and Eton)

Yesterday evening in the Chapel of King’s College, I attended a majestic Sung Requiem in Commemoration of the holy life and death of King Henry VI.  The musical setting was Durufle’s Requiem.  The service included a simple procession of offering roses and lilies in which Choral Scholar Sam Landman (Yes, him again I’m glad to say.) participated.

Among the highlights was congregational singing in Latin during said procession (Rex Henricus), all the parts featuring the choristers (They are sounding wonderful as usual.) and a beautiful singing of Ley’s Prayer of King Henry VI.  I’ve come to really love it and the prayer itself, which captures the humble submission and trust of Henry VI so well.  I am adopting it as my prayer.  The English translation from Latin:

O Lord Jesus Christ, who hast created and redeemed me, and hast brought me unto that which now I am; thou knowest what thou wouldest do with me; do with me according to thy will, for thy tender mercy’s sake. Amen.

A last note about the service – as I was entering the Chapel, I saw a man in cassock beside those entering who looked like Dr. Rowan Williams.  I thought, Surely not.  But I looked again, and it was him, and he looked very well and in good spirits.  He attended the service.

This past Tuesday morning I attended the morning chapel service at Eton.  Remembering King Henry with 1300 Eton students, formal uniforms and all, was definitely a new experience for me.

Morning chapel is still mandatory at Eton.  And in front of me, roll was taken at random of one of the houses.  I was told punishment for skipping chapel was severe.  I dared not enquire further.

----

And, yes, it is surely providential that my schedule has very naturally allowed me to attend services remembering Henry VI at both of his foundations, King’s and Eton, and where he is buried, St. George’s Chapel.  For which I give hearty thanks to God.

Synod Rewards the Vindictiveness of Church of England Feminists

Last month I noted the vindictiveness of Church of England feminists who so opposed giving traditionalists any reasonable space that they were prepared to kill women bishops legislation altogether.

Sadly, Synod has now rewarded that vindictiveness by postponing a vote on the legislation, which indeed did appear to be going down to defeat.

The rationale is that the postponement to November will give time to allow some acceptable compromise to come about.  But it is very hard to see that happening since the feminazis so clearly want to crush those traditionalists who cannot conscientiously recognize the ministry of women bishops.  Kiss my ring, or else!

Such power hunger and, yes, hate does not allow compromise, but only appeasement, if that.

Forward in Faith is right to be “disappointed.”

I would have much rather Rowan Williams actually showed some courage and told the feminists that if they are so uncharitable as to refuse to give modest and reasonable space to traditionalists, then they not only need to rethink their stand on women bishops but their faith as well.  And I would have wished he then refused to give ground and in effect dared them to kill the legislation. 

But we are talking Rowan Williams and other Church of England bishops here, aren’t we.

Church of England Pontificates on . . . UK Participation in EU Treaty?!?

I should say at the beginning that I think the UK would be wise to protect its sovereignty (and currency) from the EU.  But that is beside the point.  I am downright flabbergasted that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have seen fit to lead the Church of England into pontificating on the subject.  More specifically, they have officially criticized PM Cameron’s veto of an EU treaty.

That the Archbishops did not have enough sense to see this might not be an area in which the Church of England has any expertise or authority or credibility or unction amazes.  And where is the consideration for the fact that many faithful in the Church of England have a very different view on participation in the European Union?

I would say the sooner the Hairy Lefty departs from the throne of Canterbury the better.  But Canterbury candidate Sentamu also participated in this farce.

God help England with a national church this . . . stupid.

Archbishop of Canterbury to Resign at End of Year

Like most of you, I woke up to quite a surprise this morning. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has announced that he will step down at the end of 2012 to become Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. (Hmm, I’ve always thought him more an Oxford man.)

There will surely be much comment on his ten years on the throne of Canterbury. I might as well join in.

He is a nice and likeable man and a friend of Church of England Anglo-Catholics. But by most other measures that mean much to orthodox Anglicans, he is a failure as ++Canterbury. At the very time when upholding orthodoxy and church discipline was especially needful, he, willfully or not, enabled and even rewarded apostasy and heresy in the Anglican Communion. By trying to save the Anglican Communion by stringing along the orthodox, indabaing Lambeth, undermining the Primates, and the rest, he has only brought it that much closer to demise.

I wish the man well. But I also pray for a new Archbishop of Canterbury with the backbone to do what Rowan Williams should have done, who will do his part to banish all strange and erroneous doctrines and practices . . . instead of enabling them.

Richard Dawkins says he’s really an agnostic. (I am not kidding.)

Last Fall, I attended a debate at the Sheldonian in which Richard Dawkins did not show up. I would have loved to attend the debate this week with Dr. Rowan Williams in which he did show up. Hearing this alone would be almost worth the plane fare.

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.
“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

This floors me. I can be slightly opinionated, but if I were only about 98.5% sure God does not exist, I sure as heck would not be as (What’s a nice word?) militant about it as Dawkins is. Granted, that is rather a high level of conviction but . . . wow, I am at a loss. What incredible hubris the man has.

But, to his credit, he admitted he was not entirely sure. And I guess he’d be an even greater fool if he was 100% sure. And it sounds like he and His Grace provided an interesting evening indeed.

I would love to hear from those who were there. Did anyone faint when the air went out of the room?

The Queen’s Christmas Message

Between hosting two Christmas parties and recovering from the same, I have fallen behind on a number of tasks. Regrettably among them is viewing The Queen’s Christmas Broadcast, which I did not get around to doing until this morning. I know. Terrible.

But what a magnificent message it is! Her Majesty did not give in to the world’s pressure to secularize or water down Christmas, but forthrightly and winsomely proclaimed the core message of the birth of our Lord.



And I agree with Cranmer that her brief speech greatly outshone the Christmas missives of the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster. Do not even get me started on ++Vincent Nichols’ message. Christmas is about trashing Israel’s effort to defend herself?

I was glad to see Nichols ascend to his see, but I am sorely disappointed in him.

About Rowan Williams’ Advent Letter to the Primates

The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent an Advent letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. There is much here, but I will focus on the following paragraph:

8. These questions are made all the more sharp by the fact that the repeated requests for moratoria on problematic actions issued by various representative Anglican bodies are increasingly ignored. Strong conscientious convictions are involved here. No-one, I believe, acts out of a desire to deepen disunity; some believe that certain matters are more important than what they think of as a superficial unity. But the effects are often to deepen mutual mistrust, and this must surely be bad for our mission together as Anglicans, and alongside other Christians as well. The question remains: if the moratoria are ignored and the Covenant suspected, what are the means by which we maintain some theological coherence as a Communion and some personal respect and understanding as a fellowship of people seeking to serve Christ? And we should bear in mind that our coherence as a Communion is also a significant concern in relation to other Christian bodies – especially at a moment when the renewed dialogues with Roman Catholics and Orthodox have begun with great enthusiasm and a very constructive spirit.

What stands out, nay, shouts to me is Dr. Williams' utter cluelessness as to what is needful for “personal respect”.

If one has children who willfully and brazenly disobey household rules, you may clearly warn them once before discipline, but then if the disobedience continues, you must impose discipline, not make more expressions of “concern.” Otherwise there will be rampant disrespect for you and for your rules – and disrespect not only from the disobedient children, but also from faithful children who see your spinelessness.

Rowan Williams not only has refused to discipline The Episcopal Church and other apostates, but also willfully undermined the Primates after they sought to do the job at Dar es Salaam. And he short-circuited Lambeth from doing the job by turning it into an Inbada. He is like an indulgent parent not only will not discipline, but who also deflects and undermines all efforts of schools, of churches, and even of law enforcement to bring his riotous brats in line. No one respects such a father, no matter how shiny his mitre.

And speaking of the Roman Catholics and Orthodox, they are just being polite in any so-called “renewed dialogues.” They know full well that Rowan Williams has turned the Anglican Communion into a playground for apostates and heretics. He has thereby shot ecumenical efforts with orthodox Christians to Hell.

Having lost the respect of the vast majority of orthodox Anglicans as well as a great many not-so-orthodox Anglicans by his fecklessness, the best thing Rowan Williams could do now for the Communion and for the whole catholic church is to repent and to resign.

Otherwise, he is, as Christopher Johnson points out, a pointless man sending out useless letters.

Rowan Williams to Seek Meeting with Mugabe

This should create not a little controversy. George Conger reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury intends to seek a meeting with Robert Mugabe to discuss Zimbabwe’s persecuted Anglicans – persecuted by Mugabe to be exact.


I do not know what to think about this. Certainly, Dr. Williams has a pastoral duty to do his best on behalf of persecuted Anglicans. And, like it or not, Mugabe is in charge in Zimbabwe.


But how evil does a leader have to be before one determines that meeting with him would be pointless? If Mugabe made some sort of agreement with Rowan, would he keep it? And certainly ++Canterbury seeking a meeting with Mugabe (whether Mugabe agrees to a meeting or not) would buttress the stature of that thug.


I’ve been highly critical of Dr. Williams. But on this, he has not my criticism, but my sympathy. This is a difficult and ethically problematic decision indeed.

Rowan Williams Indabas the Primates

I do not think Rowan Williams a liar, but I think he engages in some sanctified horse manure in his latest letter to the Primates. In it, he explains why the Primates Meeting suddenly has no power:

In recent years, many have appealed to the Primates to resolve the problems of the Communion by taking decisive action to enforce discipline on this or that Province. In approaching the Dublin Meeting, we believed that it was essential to clarify how the Primates themselves understood the nature of their office and authority. It has always been clear that not all have the same view – not because of different theological convictions alone, but also because of the different legal and canonical roles they occupy as Primates. Some have a good deal of individual authority; others have their powers very closely limited by their own canons. It would therefore be difficult if the Meeting collectively gave powers to Primates that were greater than their own canons allowed them individually, as was noted at the 2008 Lambeth Conference (Lambeth [Real African Word] 2008 #151).

The unanimous judgement of those who were present was that the Meeting should not see itself as a ‘supreme court’, with canonical powers, but that it should nevertheless be profoundly and regularly concerned with looking for ways of securing unity and building relationships of trust.

Oh yes, we must be profoundly concerned. Churchly weasel words.

Let me cut through His Grace’s . . . fog for you. Since 2003, the instruments of the Anglican Communion most under the control of the Archbishop of Canterbury and allies have consistently strung along the orthodox and given a pass to The Episcopal “Church” and the Anglican “Church” of Canada. Those instruments that better represent the broader worldwide communion have been the biggest threat to that policy. And those instruments are (or were) the Lambeth Meeting of all bishops and the Primates Meeting.

So Rowan undermined those instruments. He indabaed Lambeth, making it toothless. And he time and again undermined the Primates Meeting, which previously had made comparatively robust calls for discipline. When many of the orthodox primates finally had enough and did not attend the Dublin meeting, Rowan took advantage of that to strip the Primates Meeting of what little power remained. So now that meeting, too, is now a sanctified indaba (although those who know what the word really means will tell you it is not even that).

In short, Rowan Williams has neutered those more representative instruments that might stand in the way of his intent to give the apostates pass after pass after pass ad infinitum. Must not let the savages, er I mean, the colonies run the Communion, you know.

And no amount of fog from His Grace can hide what he has done.

Crooks Rule. Rowan Williams Cheerleads.

Sometimes there is so much outrage of various sorts in one story, one hardly knows where to start.

Outrage 1: The European Court of Human Rights has presumed to tell the UK that prisoners must be allowed to vote. (Of course, if one goes further back, it is an outrage that the UK gave away so much sovereignty to European courts, but I can only do so much outrage at one time.)

Outrage 2: It appears that UK prisoners will indeed get the right to vote. The Government apparently doesn’t have enough of a backbone to tell the European Court of Human Right to . . . . Well, I will let my tactful readers complete that sentence in an appropriate manner.

Outrage 3: The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, is cheering this on, saying prisoners should indeed retain the right to vote.

Well, he lets heretics continue on indefinitely in the councils of the church. So at least he is consistent.

This all goes to show it is unwise to let international courts make your domestic laws . . . or to let modern politicians appoint your bishops.

Bishop Anderson Goes Yard

Bishop David Anderson, President of the American Anglican Council, has posted a succinct and excellent summary of the current situation in the Anglican Communion. As his headline puts it, “All is not well in ‘Rowanland’.”

He notes that Rowan Williams is uniting people, but not in the way he intended. There had been a division amongst orthodox Global South primates over how to deal with His Grace. Back in 2008, when it was clear ++Rowan would indaba Lambeth, many orthodox bishops did not go and instead went to the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON). But not all orthodox took that course. ++Anis and ++Chew were among those orthodox who did not attend GAFCON and did attend Lambeth.

“Williams, however, abused this additional chance afforded him by some of the orthodox primates, and there is now probably little differentiation between the GAFCON primates and those bishops led by Chew and Anis.” Indeed, Chew and Anis are among the primates who boycotted the just ended Primates Meeting in Dublin.

Anderson goes to the heart of the current problems in the Communion, the failure of Rowan Williams’ leadership.

Many of the primates have made their reasons for being absent very clear in public and private correspondence to Dr. Williams, who is the convener. However, the Anglican Communion Office, headed by Canon Kenneth Kearon, has concocted reasons for some of them that are simply disingenuous. Most of the primates have made it clear to Dr. Williams why they are absent and why they are frustrated and disappointed in his leadership. With this fact in mind, there is a question that begs to be asked; "Is Dr. Williams competent to lead the Communion?" You would be surprised if you polled liberal revisionists and orthodox conservatives to find that many on both sides would answer NO. It is time to acknowledge before the world that the emperor has no clothes, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has no competency to lead the Communion. . . .

The Anglican Communion is a wonderful global family that has some real dysfunction, and as is often the case, the heart of the dysfunction sits in the center. The heart of the dysfunction is not TEC, nor Bishop V. Gene Robinson, nor Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori. That these have perpetrated grossly unbiblical misconduct and deserve to be severely punished is clear enough, but to posit the blame on all of them gives them entirely too much credit and feeds their sense of importance. The blame properly falls on the spiritual father who should have disciplined the miscreants and is now unable to act for the well being of both the miscreants and the rest of the family. To be effective, discipline needs to be clear, redemptive in nature, and prompt - all of which Dr. Williams is unwilling and unable to fulfill.

+Anderson does not put much hope in the UK Government to appoint someone who will fulfill needful church leadership and discipline. He suggests a new way forward will eventually be found for orthodox Anglicanism that does not rely on Canterbury. As he concludes, “God is still sovereign, and the church still belongs to him, and in time he will set right what man has over turned.”

Again, +Anderson captures the current situation well and in few words. Get thee hence.

The Sham Primates Meeting

In case you have not noticed (and even the ACI has), the current Primates Meeting in Dublin is a sham.

The comically lame explanations of the Anglican Communion News Service aside, primates representing about two-thirds of active church members in the Communion are pointedly absent from the meeting. Most previously have made it very clear why they are not attending – because of ++Rowan Williams’ leadership, or lack thereof, in continuing to invite the primates of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to such meetings even though they and their “churches” have brazenly violated orthodoxy and past decisions of the Communion.

Again, primates representing two-thirds of active members in the Anglican Communion are absent. This is the equivalent of a vote of “no confidence” in Dr. Williams. It is an absence that shouts volumes about the utter failure of ++Rowan’s leadership in upholding orthodoxy and unity in the Anglican Communion.

It is time for Rowan Williams to go.

Should Orthodox Primates Attend the Primates Meeting?

There is an interesting discussion in the Anglican blogosphere about whether orthodox primates should attend the Primates Meeting in Dublin later this month. Matt Kennedy says no. BabyBlue says yes. And there are vigorous discussions in the comments to their posts as well.

I am a bit torn on this question. I have thought, and still do think, that a case can be made for attending the meeting if orthodox primates insist that the first item of business is a vote to expel Katherine Schori and Fred Hiltz. And if they are ready and willing to walk out if the two archapostates are not expelled. (And the two will likely not be expelled.) I heartily agree with Matt+ that scripture mandates those two are not to be treated as legitimate church leaders.

Not attending the meeting at all is the only other acceptable course I can see. For Rowan Williams has so rigged the rules of the game against the orthodox, it is appropriate for them to protest by refusing to play the game.

Past Primates Meetings made robust decisions at least begin to put apostasy in its place. ++Rowan’s response was to undermine those decisions and to undermine the institution of the Primates Meeting as a whole. When the orthodox manage to “win” one, ++Rowan turns it into a loss. Of course, most of the time, Anglican Communion processes are so rigged by Rowan and company, the orthodox hardly have a chance at the start even though they are an overwhelming majority in the Communion.

Like I said, when a game gets that rigged, an appropriate response is to protest by refusing to play. There is no scriptural mandate to play Charlie Brown to Archbishop Lucy.

Whither the Primates Meeting? (Or Here We Go Again.)

There is not a little confusion in the Anglican blogosphere, summarized well here, about whether the Archbishop of Canterbury will convene the Primates Meeting in January and, if so, in what form.

One thing is somewhat clear. Rowan Williams is thinking (or has thought) about pulling another indaba on the Primates by having small group meetings instead of one big Primates Meeting. If he does so proceed, the GAFCON Primates must not allow him to pull that off with any success. For to do so would allow Dr. Williams continued success in two aims:

1. Dr. Williams has bent over backwards over the years to avoid disciplining The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. This is a big reason he turned Lambeth into a big indaba. It is a big reason for his current deliberations about the January Primates Meeting.

2. Since the Primates Meeting has been the Instrument of Communion most desirous of actual church discipline (in part because it is not stacked toward the West like the other instruments), he has worked to undermine it in his typical passive-aggressive manner. Indabaing the Primates Meeting would further serve that end.

I therefore hope the GAFCON Primates require either that --Schori not be invited to the Primates Meeting or that there be a vote of the Primates on expelling her. And, yes, “require” means walking out or not coming if that condition is not met.

They should also insist that ++Canterbury’s continual undermining of the Primates Meeting end forthwith. Though there may be nothing wrong with small group meetings beforehand, disintegrating the Primates Meeting itself into small groups should be a non-starter.

Rowan Williams Annoys Everyone

In an already infamous interview with The Times, Rowan Williams manages to annoy just about everyone. Quite an accomplishment. (Speaking of annoying, I no longer read or link to The Times due to their new paywall.)

Now, the headlines have focused on His Grace saying that gay bishops are fine as long as they are celibate. And I will bravely defend him on that.

We all have an orientation to sin. If someone has an orientation to homosexual sin, but refrains from such and has refrained for some years, that no more disqualifies one from any holy orders than an orientation toward being cranky (like myself). So Dr. Williams is correct on this.

But as you can imagine, the libchurch crowd does not think ++Rowan’s pronouncement progressive enough.

Where he does truly annoy everyone is when he takes a pass . . . literally:

Does he still think it’s OK for gay couples to have sex, as he wrote years ago? “That’s what I wrote as a theologian, you know, putting forward a suggestion. That’s not the job I have now,” he tells Dougary.
…
But does the Archbishop hope that one day gay bishops can have partners? “Pass”.

Sorry, ++Rowan. It is a bishop’s job to teach on faith and morals. And you took a pass on that. Therefore, most Anglicans, right and left, say, “Fail!” And in so failing, you have made yourself and your church look silly and spineless.

For some more links and a sample of the annoyance, you may venture here.

Report: Jeffery John will not be Bishop of Southwark. (Thanks be to God.)

After earlier reports that Jeffery John was likely the next Bishop of Southwark, the Telegraph reports he will not be receiving a mitre anytime soon. Yes, some skepticism about the news media is in order.

I hope that report is accurate, and not so much because he is gay. He claims to be celibate, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that even though he lives with his partner. Yes, I can be very generous on occasion. Enjoy it while you can.

However, I do not think anyone who teaches what he does should be made bishop. Also, I still want the Church of England and the Anglican Communion to succeed somehow somewhat within the bounds of the faith. And the appointment of Jeffery John would have been extremely divisive and repellent to many orthodox. Right now the CofE and the Communion need something like that like a hole in the head.

Kudos to Rowan Williams for seeing that and putting the unity of the church before his own personal views.

So, yes, I am relieved it apparently will not happen at this time at least.

Of course, that does not mean there is not wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Schori’s Mitre

The sharp eye of Christopher Johnson has picked up a very interesting tidbit from the Presiding Heretic’s missionary trip to England. It turns out the Archbishop of Canterbury gave the usual permission for her to preach in his domain, but attached unusual conditions – that she not carry a bishop’s crosier or wear a mitre.

Perhaps, he was playing by the book in that the Church of England does not yet have women bishops. But it sure looks like playing by the book to send a signal.

--Schori complied . . . by carrying the mitre into Southwark Cathedral instead of either wearing it or leaving it at the hotel. Juvenile.

With Mr. Johnson, I am wondering if ++Rowan has finally had enough of her and her church.