Rowan Williams to Pope: You're not infallible you know!

The Archbishop of Canterbury has now said the only reason he has not become a Roman Catholic is because he doesn't believe in papal infallibility. He has visions of telling the Pope this next week. See more at the end of this post and also in Friday's Times article on celibacy and the ABC visit.. More links at Thinking Anglicans.

Meanwhile, Dr Rowan Williams has caused a stir with his interview in the Catholic Herald, appearing to cast doubt on the wisdom of ordaining women priests. Except according to Lambeth Palace, he cast no such doubt at all. And to pretend otherwise is "wilful misinterpetation" of his remarks.

Dr Williams flies to Rome next week for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI. This Pope in particular would no doubt look kindly on an Archbishop of Canterbury expressing some repententance for a move that, whatever its other benefits, has without question put paid to the ecumenical hopes of the last century. But we have to remember that Dr Williams was not actually expressing any such regret.  (Cartoon from Dave Walker, thank you Dave for making me laugh and helping to stop me crying.)

Asked whether the level of division had shaken his conviction that ordaining women priests was the right thing to do, Dr Williams said: "No, it hasn’t. It has tested it, it really has, and there have been moments when I have felt that. But I think perhaps what one doesn’t always realise is how very, very normal this has come to feel for the huge majority of Anglicans and it hasn’t undermined what people feel about the ministry of the sacraments. So that now that putting it back in the bottle is not an option."

He continued: "I don’t think it has transformed or renewed the Church of England in spectacular ways. Equally, I don’t think it has corrupted or ruined the Church of England in spectacular ways. It has somehow got into the bloodstream and I don’t give it a second thought these days, in terms of regular worship."

There could be no going back. "I don’t see how there can be. I could just about envisage a situation in which over a very long period the Anglican Church thought again about it, but I would need to see what the theological reason for that would be and I don’t see it at the moment. I don’t think, practically, there’s going back. It is a matter of containing and managing the diversity."

The equivocation in these paragraphs is so characteristic.

Although he is becoming less allusive than he used to be, we should still remind ourselves when coming across such statements that Dr Williams is a poet. Balance and ambiguity are just a few of the devices to which he is drawn by both inclination and practice. He is incapable of spitting or spinning things out in the manner of the modern media communiator. What his messages, spoken or written, gain in richness from this can come at the cost of immediate clarity.

Thus here once again, along with the women he would normally champion, he is a victim of his own fairmindedness. What we have here is a fair and lovely man who is a terrible polemecist because he seems always be drawn to his opponent's side of the argument. His ability not only to see but to feel compelled to articulate the side of an argument which is very likely opposed to his own is admirable, but might not necessarily serve him or the Anglican Church well in the difficult months ahead. On the other hand (that's a joke of couse), it might be exactly what the Anglican Church needs. Or it might just be God's little joke on the whole Anglican caboodle.

A classic example of this style was his recent interview with John Humphrys for the BBC Radio 4's In Search of God series. He was quite different from Tariq Ramadan and even more so from the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, who is unequivocal about his beliefs. Probably, as Chief Rabbi, you couldn't be anything else. And in any case, the Jewish way of doing theology, with Talmudic study and debates lasting centuries over passages of the Torah, is completely different from the "Anglican Way". (Please help me on this Irene!) With his academic background and episcopal experience in the Church in Wales, Rowan Williams must have been surprised to discover that this Anglican Way, once a guaranteed mantle of respect on any Church of England bishop or archbishop, is no longer any protection against misinterpretation. Quite the reverse. Seeing all positions and embracing parts of all them just leaves more doors open for abuse and insult.

At a meeting in Manchester last night, to launch a new academic forum on civic society and religion, Dr Williams said: "From the very beginning of this issue I have been a supporter of the ordination of women and have not doubted the rightness of that decision or the blessings it has brought. It has been a difficult road for the Church and the cost of that decision has been a heavy one and that has been a test.

"I made it clear in the interview with the Catholic Herald and will continue to do so that I see no theological justificaton for any revisiting of this question and indicated in the interview three times that I had no wish to reopen it, whatever technical possibilities might theoretically exist."

"The presentation of this to mean anything else is wilful misinterpetation. My convictions mean that I feel nothing less than full support for the decision the Church of England made in 1992 and appreciation of the priesthood exercised."

The Church's most senior woman priest, Dean of Salisbury June Osborne, has come out in support of the Archbishop: "I have known and worked with the Archbishop of Canterbury for more than a decade and he has been unerringly supportive of my ministry and the ministry of other women. I was thus surprised that there could have been any misunderstanding about his commitment to women priests. In my experience Archbishop Rowan has been unequivocal about the profound benefits that have been brought to the Church of England by the ministry of women."

And I thought you might like to see an amusing comment by a member of Christians on the Internet, a closed discussion group I belong to: "Having now read ++Rowan's actual words, I can only assume that Jane has a collection of Valantine's Day cards which say things like 'I can just about envisage a situation in which, over a very long period, I might consider divorcing you, but I would need to see what the matrimonial reason for that would be.  You haven't transformed or renewed my life in spectacular ways, but neither have you corrupted or ruined it."

Meanwhile, Rowan Williams himself has moved on. In another interview, this time in the Church Times, he addresses the subject of Papal infallibility and becoming a Roman Catholic himself. After saying he prefers a conciliar to a pyramidal church structure, he continues: "And the thing that always held me back from becoming a Roman Catholic at the points when I thought about it is that I can't quite swallow papal infallibility. I have visions of saying to Pope Benedict: 'I don't believe you're infallible' - I hope it doesn't come to that." Then he laughed. Glad he hasn't lost his sense of humour. Nor has Dave Walker - pictured here, his depicition of the evolution of RW.

(update:Thinking Anglicans has all the links you need to look more into this story. And Andrew Brown has rightly taken me to task for a curious contradition in sentiment and action on my part. This is the explanation I've posted on his blog:

"Maybe it was a bit mischievous to put that link to the Telegraph where I did. That's what happens if you get summoned late at night from a Parent Staff Association meeting at your son's primary school to follow up a story in a rival newspaper, one of whose leader writers/tv critics/interviewers (The Damian we both know and love) happens to be the editor-in-chief of the the Catholic paper that was the source of the story.  And then on top of that, Lambeth Palace says the story is wilful misrepresentation. The issue is the difference between what Rowan Williams actually said - that the Church may one day have to reconsider the issue - and what Lambeth Palace say he meant - that there is no possibility the issue will ever be reconsidered. Hence the apparent contradicition in the blog, which is I suppose deliberate. I know I can be criticised for it, but I did it in order to illustrate some of the difficulties under which we religion hacks are working under at present."

Comments

[Chris Gillibrand]

For the sake of balance, following my earlier post on the thunder and lightning during the proclamation of the dogma of Papal Infallability, or lest anyone has drawn mistaken conclusions about my own views, I should like to suggest a link to a photograph of Rome following a thunderstorm.

[Mike Homfray]

I can think of a few hundred other reasons not to become a Roman Catholic. Sadly, there are just as many not to remain part of organised religion at all...

[Roy Roebuck]

Celibacy does not mean what the Times thinks it means. The word you need is chaste. Try the OED

Roy Roebuck

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Of course not, Christopher. Perish the thought! I know that you and Ruth are certainly not anti-semitic. What I think they meant was that populist politicians and some parts of the media will stop at nothing in their quest to curry favour and garner the vote or approval of those who do not wish Jews well.

This is the negative side of democracy, I am afraid.

I actually think most people in Britain are definitely not anti-semitic, but there is certainly an acceptable 'discourse' of anti-semitism around, The Chief Rabbi himself was one of the people in the public eye who pointed this out to the parliamentary commission.

I really do not think that questions should have been asked about 'choseness' in this way, as it is a difficult question to explain in a programme on Radio 4 and might lead some to think that Jews think they are superior, which is certainly not the case.

By the way, are you one of the people, who with Ruth, would like to visit in Haifa?

Be great if you could.

[Christopher]

Dear Irene

My point was not on the rights and wrongs of what Livingstone said to the journalist or even the Reuben brothers, but how that fits in with Jonathan Sacks's conversation. (I am no defender of the Mayor and think he is completely wrong-headed about Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for example.)

Is your group saying that we are all anti-semitic in the UK. I know I am not and simply loathe it as much as I hate racism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination against people simply for who they are.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Dear Christopher

My learning group's reaction to the question about the 'chosen people', which usually has an edge to it, and particularly when addressed to the ABC, the head of a religion which has assumed that it has superseded Judaism and which does not understand what we mean by 'chosen' in any case was, 'My goodness, Britain is no longer a place for Jews to be in.'

I do not agree with you about Livingstone, because he only called the journalist a concentration camp guard after the journalist told hime he was Jewish. However, the JP article was not only referring to this incident, but also to Livingstone's remark to the Reuben brothers to see how they would fare under the ayatollahs, and then professing not to know that they were Jewish.

Even the Newsnight programme took him to task on that one and no-one in their right mind could accuse that programme of being in any way sympathetic to Jews or Judaism.

[joe]

Tim, other than the fact that I am a Christian rather than a humanist, I would have written something very similar myself.

[Brian]

Ruth,

Its not that RW has a keen intellect and weighs all sides of an issue. Lets be honest. He doesn't have a clue as to what he believes in.

A Bishop has to be a teacher of the faith. This presupposes that he has a faith to teach. An Episcopal See is no place to dither and dather about various doctrines.

He should have remained a poor, befuddled professor. Now, at the time the CofE needs a leader, RW has no clue as to what to do.

Brian

[Christopher]

Irene, I beg to differ about Jonathan Sacks's conversation - of the three interviews I thought his was most interesting and profound. Perhaps John Humphrys did press Jonathan Sacks harder - or it might be that the CR was more willing to engage with difficult issues. Maybe he was 'nicer' to Rowan Williams (both Welshmen, Irene!) but if he was it proved counterproductive and made a much less interesting discussion. I agree with you too that the doctrine of penal substitution is horrible - and much more difficult to justify than the sacrifice of Isaac trope, since god did nothing to stop it and Jesus was fully human (not merely an avatar) and so would have undergone the full horror of it, the fear, the scourging and the crucifixion. Just see Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ to see how the christian imagination indulges itself so sadistically and yet is so uncritical of the god who prescribed it as necessary for saving fallen humanity from the effects of Adam and Eve's disobedience.

Tariq Ramadan seemed 'liberal' by most muslim standards but he wasn't appreciated quite as much in his native Switzerland as he seems to be here. Perhaps you are right about him and he has reinvented himself.

All three interviewees have remarkable voices but I was most impressed by the tone of Jonathan Sacks. I think you somewhat undersell him when you say "Of course, the Chief Rabbi's answers were inadequate. Of course there is more to it than God being our parent." And even if the series wasn't "on a fair and equal playing field" I personally found the Chief Rabbi's conversation was the best of the three.

BTW, I didn't get what your women's Torah and Talmud learning group meant by quoting the concentration guard reference. I know how it arose - Livingstone was being doorstepped by the journalist after attending a gay event and I suppose felt that the journalist was being homophobic - but how does that relate to the Chief Rabbi's conversation?

Was Humphrys disingenuous in saying he was looking to recapture his lost faith? Clearly one of them ruled themselves out from the start on the question of stoning when Humphrys said he would require islam to disown it as wicked, whereas Ramadan would only seem to say it was no longer appropriate. Then the Chief Rabbi seemed to rule conversion out because "judaism is not a proselytising religion". Well it was once, and when push comes to shove anyone determined enough can convert, but we knew from the beginning it wasn't going to happen. Perhaps that's why he seemed to give Rowan Williams an easy ride - it was just a series of conversations and no more than that. Was anything achieved by them, finally?

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I've now had a chance to download the extended versions of the three John Humphrys interviews with The ABC, Prof Ramadan and the Chief Rabbi.

In answer to your request, Ruth, to help you out with why the ABC sounds diffident and the CR does not, this is my interpretation of the situation.

The interview with the ABC came over to me, in any case, as a friendly chat between two people of similar political beliefs and from a similar culture. In addition, the ABC knows that he is second only in importance to the Queen and therefore like her can play himself down, secure in the knowledge that the C of E prides itself on its humility.

Prof Ramadan came over as extremely clever and aware of the context he was in (he even said so). He tailored his answers to suit the listening audience. But he couldn't quite wriggle out of showing his true agenda, when fielding the questions about Jewish suffering.

The idea that we use the Holocaust to justify all manner of outrage that he left in the air is a disgrace and many of us rue the day that Tony Blair introduced HMD, as it has caused more harm than good and was not even requested by the Jewish community.

The Chief Rabbi, however, is in a truly difficult position. In a year that has seen a larger proportion of Jews emigrate to Israel from Britain than since 1948; aware of the mounting anti-semitism in the country (in fact he himself contributed to the parliamentary report on this subject) and faced with John Humphrys aggressively wanting to know why we suffer if we are the chosen people, and if God is merciful, why did he want Abraham to murder his son (thus unconsciously bringing up the blood libel surrounding the Jewish people, which started in England in the 12th century), what can the religious leader of a tiny, half percent minority, actually say?

I mean, did John Humphreys ask Rowan Williams why, according to his religion, God actually did sacrifice his son, or why Christianity, the religion of Love, is such a bloodthirsty religion (just look at its history in art)? No, he did not, because it wouldn't have been 'nice' to do so to an ABC. And Rowan even seems to be in denial about all the centuries of Christian fighting among themselves (as well as against other religions, especially against weak and defenceless Jews under their care, who they slaughtered with impunity).

Of course, the Chief Rabbi's answers were inadequate. Of course there is more to it than God being our parent.

But this series was not on a fair and equal playing field.

It was not as if vegetables were under discussion and carrots, cabbages and cauliflowers were vying for first place (Jews being the carrots, as they are the root religion).

No, to my mind, we were dealing here with a question of FISH. The first is a beautiful pink salmon or trout, which knows it is beautiful, so can just float through the stream, beaming out benevolence. Then we have a very slippery eel. And we end with a sprat (or maybe a herring, preferably on rye bread, very rye), which is taking great care not to be swallowed up, aware that actually small really is beautiful, but that with the eel around, size actually has its advantages.

I discussed all three interviews with my women's Torah and Talmud learning group. And their reply was two-fold:

a) Have you seen the article in the Friday November 17th Jerusalem Post by its editor, David Horovitz?

I hadn't at the time, but here is a quote and I believe that the editor of the JP was originally also from Britain:

'The mayor of London, the populist Ken Livingstone, has a track record of horribly offensive comments not only about Israel but about Jews. He notoriously likened a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard and suggested that two Jewish property developers with whom he had a gripe ought to "go back and see if they can do better under the ayatollahs" (incidentally, the two brothers, Simon and David Reuben, were born in India, or Iraqi descent).

It is hard to believe that a more numerous, robust and confident Jewish community, raising objections in a more sympathetic domestic engivonment, would not have prompted Livingstone to apologize for and modeerate such utterances. But so cowed is the Anglo-Jewish leadership, so reluctant to rock the boat, that Livingstone sails serenly on, in the process normalizing what should be unacceptable rhetoric and attitudes.'

End of quote.

and b) Thank goodness you have made
aliyah.

Sorry, but you did ask for me to help you out on this one.

[Tom Allen]

With regard to RW and women priests it will come as no surprise to discover that The Daily Telegraph and others were simply making mischief and wilfully misreporting what was said for the sake of a good story - the only suprising thing is that you fell for it Ruth and presented it as a new story see the link for the details: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/061116.htm

[Chris Gillibrand]

In 1949, another special correspondent submitted an article to the Times entitled Catholicism Today. An extremely lengthy correspondence ensued in the letters pages, the signatures for which read as a role call of all the most influential figures in religion of those days.

As an English Catholic abroad (exiled in Belgium, like my Catholic forebears!) I cannot resist posting a letter from someone who signs themselves simply “An English Catholic Abroad” which was published on November 17, 1949. While I don’t quite agree with 100 percent of the contents, it shows how little has changed. The letter was published well before the Second Vatican Council.

Sir,—There is one important point arising out of your article " Catholicism To-day " which seems to have been insufficiently brought out in the subsequent correspondence. It is what is meant by the term " Christian," Is there any real agreement on this ? To Catholics the term connotes not only a code of ethics but also a definite system of philosophy, doctrine, and religious belief, which they regard as the essential basis of that code. They consider that the principles of the Sermon on the Mount derive their authority from such doctrines as those of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. They believe that uncertainty in faith must lead to uncertainty in morals, and that effective combination or cooperation with other bodies is only practicable when a measure of agreement on the essentials of doctrine exists.

Such a measure of agreement may well be found between Catholics and certain other groups of Christians, and with such groups close cooperation may prove easy. But there is a wide field where unfortunately there is little basis of common belief. Indeed, there are to-day a great many serious and conscientious people who consider they have every right to be called Christians, but who would hesitate to accept such doctrines as the Divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, or the Sacramental System. They are entitled to their doubts; but if so, can they reasonably expect to be treated as full partners by those to whom such doctrines are the core of their religion and the basis of their code ?

To a Catholic much of the rest of the Christian world presents a bewildering variety of views on fundamental issues, ranging from rigid fundamentalism at one extreme to virtual unbelief at the other. Is it then altogether surprising that Catholics should sometimes wonder with what school of thought they are in fact being asked to combine ? This does not mean that men of good will cannot work together for a common purpose. But is it not possible that that purpose may be better served if we squarely face the real differences between us and try as far as possible to get a clearer understanding of the meaning of the terms we have to use ?

Yours faithfully,
AN ENGLISH CATHOLIC ABROAD.

PS I am very curious about the true identity of the special correspondent and the English Catholic abroad.

[Chris Gillibrand]

The mention of James Anthony Froude reminds me of his brother, Hurrell Froude who in contrast supported the views of tbe then John Henry Newman, later Cardinal.

http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/hutton/chapter3.html

[Tim Cooper]

Joe: Absolutely. So presumably it follows that you would certainly not sanction Anglicans 'pushing and pulling' the whole world asunder either? The whole world includes me and I'm a humanist. I really object to being forcibly included in the privileged world of Anglicanism, in schools, government, the media and all the rest of it. So do get on with whatever it is you are meant to be doing; it might include trying to temper the broad assumptions and to keep the dogma out of other peoples' lives?

[Chris Gillibrand]

Married ex-Anglicans have been ordained to the priesthood and all the Eastern Rite Catholics in communion with the Holy See have married clergy (you can't however be ordained and rhen married).

See section B here
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

[Andrew Eburne]

Not being a subscriber to Church Times, and aware of Ruth's fondness for a good headline (no disrespect, Ruth), I'm not sure if my bemusement at your opening line is justified.
("The Archbishop of Canterbury has now said the only reason he has not become a Roman Catholic is because he doesn't believe in papal infallibility")

I just can't quite believe the supremo of the worldwide Anglican Communion would publicly declare he saw only this one obstacle to his conversion / reversion.

Of course papal infallibility can be a tricky one for Anglicans. My historic understanding of infallibility is that it is basically a consiliar property, which in every instance bar two has been exercised by councils - ie pronouncing dogma infallibly has always been done by Councils of the Church except in the case of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Our Lady. Granted it remains a tricky one, but I wouldn't have seen it as insuperable if that were your only reason...

With regard to Janice's point about married clergy: there are already well-established means by which married clergy can come over, as a certain number here and in the USA have already done. So I think that 'bone of contention' has already been well-chewed.

Finally, however, it does seem that the present furore about closer links with the Catholic Church presents an awful lot of smoke without much fire, for two reasons.

Firstly, although Catholics in the UK would dearly love a rapprochement, I would have thought that the potential healing of the schism with the Orthodox Church is an infinitely higher priority for Catholics generally. And here we're talking about full communion (however remote) between two churches.

Secondly, part of the reason that we are even talking about the possibility of priests and people coming over to Rome is not because Catholicism in itself has suddenly become very much more attractive, but because Anglicans are at war with each other. It's not a case of two churches coming into closer communion, but of the disaffected casualties of that war coming over in dribs and drabs. Would it were otherwise.

[joe]

Seems to me to be an entirely pointless conversation.

Anglicans Don't Have The Same Theology As Roman Catholics Shocker!

Pope is Catholic!

Bears Toilet in Woods!

C'mon this is a five hundred year old discussion - get over it. Anglicanism is never going to be reconciled to Rome or Constantinople.

If you feel more confortable in Rome, Orthodoxy or the First All-Male Baptist Church of Outer Mongolia, then go and get on with it. I am just heartily sick of the whole world trying to pull and push Anglicans in different directions as if they are naughty children in need of correction.

We don't need correction from you, thanks.

Meanwhile, it'd be nice if we could get on with doing the things we're meant to be doing instead of responding to insults and scorn from without and within.

[Janice Leaver]

Surely the issue of married clergy is the first bone of contention to cough up between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. Advocates of closer links with Rome, who would ban women from ordained ministry, appear to forget that the men ordained to Anglican priesthood are almost as far beyond the pale as the women, because they are free to be married.

[Mike Homfray]

Rowan Williams has precisely no media or political skills.

You would have thought by now he would have attempted to develop them, but he just hasn't got it.

[Chris Gillibrand]

The Revd Thomas Mozely, the Times Special Correspondent in Rome in 1870 records the Definition of the Dogma of Papal Infallability took place during a violent thunderstorm. One hesitates to predict the weather for the forthcoming visit of the Archbishop but if he denies Papal infallibility to the Pope’s face, I forecast a chill wind.

Here is his account.
The reading of the Dogma was followed by the roll-call of the Fathers, and Placet after Placet (vote of agreement) followed, though not in very quick succession. (in fact, 533 votes for, two against, one of the two going to the throne immediately afterwards with the words, "Modo Credo, sancta Pater – now I believe Holy Father." Many French bishops had already left - my added comment). They were uttered in louder and bolder tones than on former occasions, either that the echo was greater from the comparative emptiness of the church or that the Fathers were pleased at being shorn, and amid their utterances there was a loud peal of thunder.

The storm, which had been threatening all the morning, burst now with the utmost violence, and to many a superstitious mind might have conveyed the idea that it was the expression of Divine wrath, as ' no doubt it will be interpreted by numbers,' said one officer of the Palatine Guard. And so the Placets of the Fathers struggled through the storm, while the thunder pealed above and the lightning flashed in at every window and down through the dome and every smaller cupola, dividing if not absorbing the attention of the crowd. Placet, shouted his Eminence or his Grace, and a loud clap of thunder followed in response, and then the lightning darted about the baldacchino and every part of the church and Conciliar Hall, as if announcing the response. So it continued for nearly one hour and a half, during which time the roll was being called, and a more effective scene I never witnessed. Had all the decorators and all the getters-up of ceremonies in Rome been employed, nothing approaching to the solemn splendour of that storm could have been prepared, and never will those who saw it and felt it forget the promulgation of the first Dogma of the Church.
The facade of the Hall had not been removed as on former occasions, only the great door was opened, so that it could be scarcely called an open Session, and people could get a glimpse of what was going on only by struggling fiercely and peering over one another's shoulders, or by standing at a distance and looking through a glass. I chose this last and better part. The .storm was at its height when the result of the voting was taken up to the Pope, and the darkness was so thick that a huge taper was necessarily brought and placed by his side as he read the words which invested him with Divine powers, ' Nosque, sacro approbante Concilio, ilia ita decernimus, statuimus atque sancimus ut lecta sunt, definimus et apostolica auctoritate confirmamus' And again the lightning flickered around the Hall, and the thunder pealed.
I was standing at this moment in the south transept trying to penetrate the darkness which surrounded the Pope, when the sound as of a mighty rushing something, I could not tell what, caused me to start violently, and look about me and above me. It might be a storm of hail. Such for an instant was my impression ; and it grew and swelled, and then the whole mystery was revealed by a cloud of white handkerchiefs waving before me. The signal had been given by the Fathers themselves with clapping of hands. This was my imaginary hailstorm ; and it was taken up by the crowd outside the Hall and so the storm grew in violence until at length it came to where I stood. Viva il Papa Infallibile! Viva il trionfo dei Cattolici!

[Murray Lamond]

'Allusive? ' Williams is extremely well-read, poetic, and prone to echo other writers; but I suspect 'elusive' was what you had in mind. And he certainly is that, too.

rg writes: No I did actually mean allusive - he makes constant subtle allusions of a poetic nature, it makes his speeches actually quite beautiful, but difficult to report from a news sense. Yes I agree, his meaning can be very elusive too.

[Fr Matthew Olver]

Ms Gledhill,

I am an ECUSA priest in the Diocese of Dallas who will be in Rome for +++Rowan's visit to the Holy See with some folks from the American Friends of the Anglican Centre. I will be at most of the events where the Archbishop is participating and I hope that we might meet each other. I have appreciated much of your writing in the past year or so, and will be interested in your take on what occurs next week. I also am traveling with a theologian from Notre Dame here in the States who is something of an expert on things ecumenical.

Until then,
Fr Matthew Olver

[Frank Schnittger]

I must be getting this all wrong. I thought that Rome and the CofE were getting closer because, since Vatican II and the vernacular Mass, Catholicism has become more and more protestant. They're even singing slightly doctored versions of Protestant hymns. Union with the CofE might even get Rome off the hook on married and women clergy. Now if only this whole gay thing would go away...... (oops - lets not go there again!)

[Chuck Unsworth]

I agree with J Pearce above. There's a profound difference between expressing one's own personal views - with all that entails - and expressing a view as the head of a church.

Whilst Dr Williams may think certain things it is sometimes unwise to make them public. Certainly church leaders must also understand the potential effects of their words. If they cannot then they are really not fit to be leaders. Leadership, with all of its privileges, necessitates certain constraints. 'Noblesse oblige'.

By contrast, when the Pope pronounces 'on matters of faith' he has (historically, traditionally) been considered infallible by Roman Catholics. However and as always, the devil is in the detail. Definition of 'matters of faith' anyone?

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Dear Ruth

I sent you one posting which was returned as an 'error', so I am trying again. Please post this one rather than the first, as I don't want to take up too much space.

I really feel honoured that you would like me to comment on the Chief Rabbi's approach to things, versus that of the Anglicans. I suppose, having taught Christians for most of my life, I sort of have a foot in both camps.

If you could possibly send me the link to the CR's interview, which is not yet available, apparently, as the programme is being repeated tomorrow, I would be very grateful.

What I should say though is that generally, Jews are very argumentative and this is regarded as positive. Judaism is a legal system, and not simply a 'faith' and for every minority in a country, such as Jews in England, for example, it is easier to be certain, in my view, than for religions as a majority.

Therefore, Jewish people in Israel tend to be more open here about uncertainity, whereas I have wonderful conversations with Christians and Muslims in Israel who are far more certain about religion than the Christians and Muslims I used to know in England.

I don't know if anyone else has ever had this experience.

[Chris]

Simon wrote:

"'Alistair

Why does Pope Benedict XVI never fly in to London for an audience with Dr Williams?'

Because us Catholics would expect him to at least lead a a mass at Wembley stadium whilst he was here!"

Perhaps Pope Benedict might at least provide the impetus to get the stadium finished??

[Katrina]

Stop spinning, Ruth. Rowan is like the little boy in the cake shop who died of hunger because he couldn't make up his mind which cake he wanted to eat.

[Andrew Eburne]

Alistair, you're being mischievous. I nearly added, 'as usual'; but at least you're not scolding us today.

As Simon infers, there are practical difficulties: Pope Benedict would be expected to celebrate mass for a significant proportion of this country's 1 million practising Catholics. With all due respect, Dr Williams wouldn't face similar logistics in Italy. And besides, with 999 million other Catholics to minister to, there's only so much travelling a 79 year old Pope can do.

Your mischief has at least succeeded in provoking some good oldfashioned anti-Catholic nonsense from Robin Bather. I'm not sure how 'Catholic countries' are defined in this diatribe, but as for 'third world backwaters' it might be worth noting that in 6 out of the G8 nations, Catholics either form the largest single Christian denomination (Canada, USA, France, Italy), and in 2 others are joint first (Germany, UK - taking at par the 1 million Anglicans and Catholics who actually go to church each week).

[Chris Gillibrand]

“Catholic countries remained (and still remain to a large extent) as third world backwaters controlled by the overbearing power of the Catholic Church.”

An utterly Catholic Flanders was once the trading centre of the world and in our own day, Bavaria has certainly not been ever reduced to destitution by the Catholic Church. Far from it, Bavaria is one of the few beacons of economic hope in Germany. And it was not Catholicism that destroyed the prosperity of Flanders.

The only country in Europe where anyone seriously talks about the “overbearing power” of the Catholic Church is the UK.

The last time the Church of England actively sought to be regarded as equals with the Roman Pontiff was in 1897 when the Archbishops of Canterbury and York replied to Apostolicae Curae on Anglican orders in Saepius Officio.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

After the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Ramsey was treated as an equal but one would have to say that, by that stage, this was as a result of a certain generosity on the part of Pope Paul VI (not least symbolised by the donation of the episcopal ring given to him by the people of Venice during his time as Patriarch).

[Simon Sarmiento]

We can now all read the original interview for ourselves at http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features_opinion/feature_article.html

[Robin Bather]

"Why does Pope Benedict XVI never fly to London for an audience with Dr Williams?"

Because Alistair, the dog wags the tail and the tail doesn't wag the dog.

The CofE, under the weak leadership of man who seems fairminded to a fault, appears to be doing everything possible to get closer to the Church of Rome whilst Rome continues to regard the CofE as some sort of juvenile delincuent.

Let's not forget that, apart from Henry VIII's convenient use of the breakaway from Rome, the time was ripe for a Reformation against the Vatican's abuse of the faithfull and corruption on a grand scale.
The Reformation was indeed a great event and urgently required.
Rome still smarts from the actions of upstarts like Wycliffe, Luther and Calvin and downplays the importance of this period which opened the way for the age of enlightenment whilst Catholic countries remained (and still remain to a large extent) as third world backwaters controlled by the overbearing power of the Catholic Church.

Dr Williams seems to be a reflection of a weak dying religion that will one day merge with Rome once again.

It's the way of the world. Religion is of no importance to most people in the UK.

[Simon]

Alistair

Why does Pope Benedict XVI never fly in to London for an audience with Dr Williams?

Because us Catholics would expect him to at least lead a a mass at Wembley stadium whilst he was here!

[alistair mcbay]

"Dr Williams flies to Rome next week for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI"

Why does Pope Benedict XVI never fly in to London for an audience with Dr Williams?

[Keith Downer]

The first I heard of Dr William's latest comment on the ordination of women was on a popular London news / talk radio programme this morning where the presenter - always ready to make fun and be sarcastic about religious issues - made it sound like a reversal of the policy was under way. He was posing questions like "What will they do with a woman priest when she can no longer remain as a priest?" as part of his attempts to get a debate going with his listeners.
I think Dr William's is being treated unfairly by the media and the Catholic Herald in particular where his views are concerned. The quote from last night's Manchester meeting clearly indicates that there is no ambiguity in his mind where this subject is concerned. As someone who regularly puts his foot where his mouth is, I sympathise with anyone whose intentions are mis- understood, whose comments are taken out of context or who has to suffer from a "spin" being applied to his opinions.
Whether it is appropriate at this particular time to have a "poet" - and one given to "equivocation" who is recognised as being a "victim of his own fairmindedness" - as leader of the Church; now that is a different matter.

[J Pearce]

Ah, the perils of being an honest man in a world of exploitation…

I feel genuinely sorry for Dr. Williams on this. As an incredibly intelligent man who spends an inordinate amount of time thinking deeply about things, all he appears to have done is give expression to the internal dialogue he apparently gone through, in regards to women priests.

The trouble is, as a leader, its not advisable to give the world a window on the doubts and uncertainties one may have, especially on subjects as controversial as this. I suspect he may have made a rod for his own back on this subject from this point onwards.

[Frank Schnittger]

The trouble with academics is that to be fair-minded, they have to be open to all possiblities at all times. The problem with Leadership and the public relations process, is that once you don't explicitly exclude something people start concluding that you are trying to put it back on the agenda. Even a weak denial is seen trying to re-open the door. In private you can be open to all manner of possibilites, if only out of open-mindedness, but in public you have to toe the party line or else the troops start to feel restive. No doubt he will learn!

[Jill]

The ABC must have realised that the advent of women bishops in the C of E is going to unchurch a large number of people, as hopes of proper provision for dissenters fade. It’s not much use backpedalling now - he will just have to accept that he and his predecessor will go down in history as the ones who enabled this process, signalling the inevitable decline of the C of E as it careers blindly down the same destructive path as TEC.

Some of us are watching with interest further developments of yesterday’s post ‘Pope to throw open the Flaminian Gate to Anglicans’.

[Malcolm Bowden]

I hadn't realised that the ordination of women as priests was supposed to either "transform" or "renew" the Church of England. I had assumed it was about male and female being equal in the sight of God.

I can't quite see what the Archbishop is up to. Obviously the Church can't stop ordaining women priests without legislation which would most certainly not be forthcoming. I can only think conspiracy theory; that it may all be about not having women bishops after all and that, in turn, may well have a lot to do with the Archbishop's trip to Rome.

Why do I suddenly feel very depressed?