Will Rome really take our trads?

I asked this question of an extremely well-connected Roman Catholic friend and this was his response: 'I honestly don't think Rome will. Last thing we need. Their position was untenable in the 19th century, became ridiculous in 1992, and is now quite simply grotesque.'

Hmm. Being in a Resolution A parish myself, I am more sympathetic to their plight, but fear that those who fantasise a Flaminian Gate-style welcome are deluding themselves. A number of leading supporters of women bishops can't wait for them to up sticks and go to Rome, but they also might be counting their blessings too soon. Rome, it seems to me, is unlikely to want them much if at all. Better to look to the Bishop of London, summoning a 'sacred synod' in October to address the crisis in his intensely evo and trad diocese. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury has an extremely strong rapport with Pope Benedict XVI. He was told clearly on a recent visit to Rome that the Pope will not deal with sub-groups, and that there are no back doors nor side doors to Rome. The Church of England might have effectively abandoned any realistic prospect of full visible unity, but it is still the Church of England that Rome will deal with.

Universalisation of some kind of Anglican Use in the UK is a possibility, but English parishes are not like American ones. US parishes use the episcopalian liturgy. Many English traditionalist parishes already use the Roman rite so it would be a bit hard for Rome to authorise an Anglican rite for them. Nevertheless, there is a possibility of that happening in some form, and there are whispers of some kind of announcement from the Vatican after Lambeth.

Rome knows however that the Catholics in the pews should not be upset too much. In England at least, these Catholics are by and large pretty liberal. Many of them would like women priests, or at the very least married ones. The last thing they want is a whole group of woman-bishop-hating clergy coming over, with their wives and families, and enforcing some kind of new doctrinal orthodoxy on dioceses that are working very well without them and finding their own accommodation with Catholic orthodoxy and modern life. Given the sacrifices their own priests have made in their embrace of celibacy, poverty and obedience in the service of Christ, they are unlikely to want our more-Roman-than-the-Romans alighting their vestry doors. And although the reception process drawn up by the late Cardinal Basil Hume for Anglican priests is still in place, the £25 million-plus that the Church Commissioners paid out after the 1992 vote on women priests to the 450 or so who left then will not be available this time to ease the passage into poverty of CofE priests and bishops.

As for parishes living in some kind of fantasy world where they dream of taking the lot with them, well dream on. The closest they'll ever get to that is through some kind of meeting with the Foca. How long the new alliance between the conservative evangelical and Anglo-Catholic groupings will last is anyone's guess, given the uncompromising evangelical stance on issues of human sexuality, and the fact that many evangelicals are prepared in fact to accept women priests and even bishops.

The Bishop of Fulham, John Broadhurst, chairman of Forward in Faith, is clearly of the 'staying in' grouping. That is probably the only realistic option for any not prepared to up sticks as individuals and jump through the adult Rite of Initiation hoops that successfully gathers in hundreds at Westminster Cathedral and elsewhere every Easter.

Broadhurst's bishop, the truly wonderful and dignified Richard Chartres, will revisit the London plan and attempt to find a way that will continue to enable the two integrities to live as one. Why go and seek unity with the Pope when we've as good as got one already in London?

The 'flying' Bishop of Ebbsfleet, however, is of a different mind. He writes in the Catholic Herald of his longing for unity with Rome, and to be able to take his congregation with him. He is one of the bishops who had a meeting in Rome, in his case in April. That was a separate meeting from that involving evangelical and Anglo-Catholic bishops, where a source in Rome tells me one CofE bishop even presented his wife to the Pope. Reminds me of when Cranmer presented his wife at Court. Worth remembering, isn't it, that even after Cranmer recanted and turned back to Rome, Mary still had him burnt.

This is Broadhurst's letter:

A Message from the Chairman of Forward in Faith

'The vote in General Synod on the proposal for Women Bishops will have been a real shock to many in our parishes. This is not the time for rapid decisions or knee-jerk reactions but rather a time calmly to take counsel together. 

'It was obvious in November 1992 that the Church of England had changed substantially for the worse. In the years that followed we have lived together with a real Gospel sense of purpose and they have been good years for us and our parishes. This week’s vote at General Synod came as a real shock to me, not because I expected to win but because I had not realised the depth of the uncharitable and unchristian attitudes held by the majority. It became absolutely obvious that, in spite of appeals from both Archbishops, the majority of so called liberals were determined to see us out. I have been quite impressed today that a liberal bishop and an archdeacon have both phoned me saying they shared our sense of shock. The Bishop of Dover, who is a supporter of women bi shops, said in Synod: ‘for the first time in my life I feel ashamed’. 

'So what has changed apart from clarity about the nature of our opponents? I suspect not very much. As a priest and as a bishop, and as Chairman of Forward in Faith, I have always believed that the changing ecclesiology in the Church of England made collective demands on us. My conviction has always been that we have to seek a common ecclesial way forward. Our hope was that this would be established by the General Synod and though this now seems unlikely, it is still not an impossibility. I remain determined to find a way forward. 

'There has been speculation in the media about contact with Rome. I am strongly committed to Christian unity and, as many of you know, I was involved in the talks with the Roman Hierarchy in 1992 and later spent a considerable time with the then Cardinal Ratzinger in 1996. My problem then was that, although there was great generosity, there was no offer of an ecclesial reconciliation. In other words, our common Eucharistic and spiritual life was not recognised. That remains a problem for me. I am fascinated by the conversations between the Traditional Anglican Communion and Rome as well as those between some of our Bishops and the Holy See. Will these now offer a way forward?

'Many of you have phoned me in the last twenty four hours, angry or distressed. Several have suggested that we should declare war on those who seek to destroy us. Particularly, the suggestion has been made that we stop paying Diocesan Quota. I am open on this matter but think that now is not quite yet the time for such drastic gestures, for whatever we do needs its timing to be agreed by us all so that we can act together. Be assured of my commitment to our common life and of my determination to continue to seek a common way forward in faith for all of us.

'Every Blessing.'

Bless you, too, Bishop. Please stay with the Church. Now, more than ever, we need our Anglo-Catholics, both liberal and traditional.

Comments

[Fr Mark]

Geoffrey Meldrew:
"I don't like the new format, do you?"

Why am I not surprised?

[Geoffrey Smith]

1) Sodomy, Mr C, is a serious sin, regardless of the circumstances. Using a condom is irrelevant.

2) An HIV+ man is bound to abstain from sexual relations with his wife. Using a condom is irrelevant.

3) A retro-virus is not an electric current.
It is a living organism which is quite capable of movement in a suitable environment, even passing through holes as small as those in a condom. A staged experiment like the one you saw on Channel 4 (!!) does not negate this simple physical fact.
Incidentally, I, too, read the DT online.
I don't like the new format, do you?

[George Parr]

Geoffrey asserts that Christopher's favorite newspaper is The Guardian, which he always reads in the morning, but both are untrue.

However, people who read the Guardian, can be seen as embracing uniformity and all conform to some sort of undefined line. Geoffrey apparently speaks for a group of people in his assertion and this group also expects those who read the Guardian to conform to an undefined line. So there are at least two groups. Geoffrey belongs to one, but it is unlikely that Christopher belongs to the other because Geoffrey, seemingly, has got his favourite morning newspaper wrong.

In the debate which includes Cardinal Trujillo's alleged statement and the apparent failure rate of condoms, Geoffrey cannot work out the figures; so he assumes that all those who have sadly been diagnosed with HIV aids in San Fransisco were wearing one. All gays know that they should wear a condom, so they all do Geoffrey thinks. He cannot conceive that some gays in Bayside apparently do not know how to use condoms and thinks that some condoms are porous because the latex used is substandard.

The Durex company might be interested to know that Geoffrey has put their name forward as a company unlikely to admit that their condoms are flawed. The reason is because to do so would risk 'billions of dollars'.

All this aside, Geoffrey says that the various methods of birth control are condemned by the Catholic Church only because they represent moral depravity, baseness and wicknedness. All people practising birth control are therefore base, depraved and wicked. This description of birth control is unerringly accurate and factually correct. It might also be taken as generally accepted and unequivocal as far as Geoffrey is concerned because he adds 'nothing more nothing less' proscribing further discussion.

No-one, certainly not the editors or the reporters working for the newspaper Geoffrey describes as Christopher's 'favourite morning drivel' (which he wrongly infers is The Guardian) could dispute these 'facts'.

[Christopher]

Do condoms have little holes through with the HIV virus can slip?

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=ask-01-08-03

It seems the answer is no since condom latex is impermeable to electrons. It insulates against electric current passing through. On the Channel 4 programme The Big Experiment kids actually did an experiment on public television to prove it. Since the electron is much smaller than the virus is shows Trujillo was dead wrong.

[Christopher]

Who said the Guardian is my favourite morning 'drivel'? I prefer the Times (not as drivel, of course!) but I read the Indy and the DT online - not the Daily Mail which I imagine might be more your kind of thing, Geoffrey.

The cause of the high incidence of HIV infections in San Francisco? Condom fatigue. People get careless and with meds AIDs is no longer seen as the death sentence it was. Thatcher's government was right to mount the campaign they did; it certainly saved hundreds of lives. But tell me Geoffrey, if 'sodomy' is a sin, does an HIV+ person using a condom to protect his partner compound the sin or does he mitigate it by his consideration? After all condoms are only sinful when they stop the possibility of conception, aren't they? Question: If an HIV+ man uses a condom and he or his wife is infertile, is it still a sin? I suspect it is - the sin of disobedience.

[Geoffrey Smith]

As a Guardianista, Christopher, I would certainly expect you to conform to the line we have come to expect from that quarter. Cardinal Trujillo did not add "an entirely new objection", but merely pointed out what has become all too obvious since the onset of AIDS in the early 1980s. If the failure rate is "only" 10%, why should no less than 24% of the gays in SF be HIV+?
All gays know that they must wear condoms, right? It beggars belief to suggest that the homosexuals of Bayside do not really know how to use these devices, or that the American manufacturers have such lax quality control procedures that they allow such a significant proportion of their production to get out on to the market in such a dangerous condition. No, the only
explanation for the spread of AIDS, despite the widespread use of latex, is that the material is not quite as reliable as its makers and users would like us to think. It is porous to an unacceptable degree, but, of course, with so many billions of dollars at stake, we can hardly expect the Durex company to concede their product is a bit duff. However, apart from these physical factors, the Catholic Church's condemnation of birth control is based exclusively on the moral turpitude that it undoubtedly is, nothing more, nothing less, and regardless of any report or editorial in your favourite morning drivel.

[Christopher]

"As the gays of San Francisco know to their cost."

I suppose you would have to be in the Trujillo camp on this one, Geoffrey but even so I suggest you contact the Terrence Higgins Trust to find out some facts. Safer sex practices have certainly saved people from passing on the virus, though nothing is 100% certain, that is why 'condom fatigue' is very bad news. But we couldn't expect you to believe the THT, Geoffrey, not if cardinal Trujillo said latex is permeable to the HIV virus. The Guardian obituary for Alfonso cardinal López Trujillo states:

"In a BBC documentary in 2003, he sensationally claimed that the HIV virus which causes Aids could actually pass through tiny holes in the rubber of condoms. Hitherto, the Catholic church had argued that condoms were immoral because they break the link between sex and procreation. López Trujillo was adding an entirely new objection - that condoms did not work.

His remarks were seized upon internationally and ridiculed by eminent scientists as well as the World Health Organisation, which pointed out that, while 20 million people had died of Aids, condoms had been shown to be 90% effective in stopping the transmission of infection, with failures down to users' carelessness."

So there you have it, 90% effective. That's why the Vatican's pretence that they don't work is not just irresponsible, it is mendacious. Given the gravity of the situation of AIDS transmission in Africa some might say it is wicked.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Jan: Any married person who contracts AIDS via a blood transfusion is morally bound under pain of grave sin to avoid sexual relations with his/her spouse. It is typical Maggie Thatcherite propaganda of 1984 that the use of condoms will protect the innocent spouse from the disease.
As the gays of San Francisco know to their cost.

Dr Marsh: It is NOT a totally different case. Onan did NOT refuse to have sex with his brother's widow; he indulged in coitus interruptus which is a form of birth prevention. The penalty for such an offence was death, not public humiliation as described in Deuteronomy. The whole underlying problem with this exchange, Dr Marsh, is that you have a personal preference for those Biblical texts that seem to support your version of Christian morality, but a disdain for those parts of the Bible that contradict it. You are the one who has got it horribly wrong, but in your pride and arrogance you refuse to admit it.

[Christopher]

Alan, the story of Onan was used by catholic priests to terrorise catholic boys over the sin of masturbation. Presumably this misapplication of the levirate law has been remembered by Geoffrey from his school days. A catholic euphemism for masturbation was onanism. As you say, I don't think the Church was referring to disobedience over marrying one's brother's widow!

[Christopher]

"Dr Marsh is not the Son of God. He has no authority in the moral realm and all his judgements will be subjective and a reflection of his personal partiality."

Can't he at least be Christ-like? I thought that was the aim of you all, except maybe GAFCONite bishops, who want to be "godly".

[John]

How funny - St Onan has always been known, not as a user of contraceptives but as the patron saint of w***ers.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Only a body such as "Catholic Answers" could get it so horribly wrong. In their determination to find support for their bizarre opposition to contraception, they have blatantly misrepresented the text.

In plain English, Geoffrey, Onan refused to have sex with his brother's widow. It is a totally different case.

Unless you know of some obscure Vatican ruling that this is still applicable to modern RCs?

[George Parr]

This makes no sense whatsoever - red-hot theology aside. The disconnect between 'contraception' and masturbation could not be clearer. Would walking away or any other refusal to copulate have been regarded as some sort of fatal birth control method, or is it just a general Catholic fascination with semen?

With some notable exceptions, often precariously near to policies stemming from residual religious thinking, biblical models such as humiliation or the death penalty do not feature overly in a civilised toolkit of public control, but contraception (through masturbation or otherwise) is a God given instruction - that Catholics apply generally...

So, whilst contraception is an absolute evil punishable by death, the grey area involving the gratuitous slaying of one another is not. God shows us the way then. Catholic ethical morality, is that irony or an oxymoron?

Naturally, maintaining policies based on 'information' from within this antique cultural and historical context precludes any form of common relevance, ignores human understanding and renders the entire discussion inapplicable. It is at best willingly gleaned from a disputable and dubious source, by those fascinated with draconian storytelling for control purposes. Arguably, to define a version of human morality using this methodology is ridiculous along with those who advocate it.

[J Pearce]

Gents,

Having returned to this thread after a short sojourn, I find myself witnessing a WWF-style smackdown of Biblical proportions! Three “Christians” going at each other hammer and tongs, each convinced of their ethical and moral superiority, eye watering Biblical knowledge…it makes the festering antipathy between Jews and Muslims look like a minor pub argument!

Geoff, if you class population decline as some sort of evidence of God’s displeasure, then what are you going to make of the statistic that Muslims are outbreeding native Europeans (Prots and Cath’s alike?).

Is this God’s way of saying that Islam is actually His True Word, perhaps?

A few other points of note - what is the “sin rating” of the following hypothetical scenario: a married Catholic woman, who follows all doctrinal commands on contraception (i.e. doesn’t use any), contracts Aids through a blood transfusion. Then passes it onto her husband because no contraception is allowed.

From a Catholic viewpoint, is the woman to be condemned for effectively killing her husband? Or congratulated for following Catholic doctrine to the letter, regardless of the consequences?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Onan is not relevant to the discussion".
- Dr Alan Marsh, 21 JUL 2008, 12:17:21

I quote: "The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one's dead brother.
"Judah said to Onan, Go into your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother'. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled his semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also"
(Gen. 38:8-10)
The biblical penalty for not giving your brother's widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7-10).
But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood it. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism", after the man who practised it, just as homosexuality has historicaaly been known "Sodomy", after the men of Sodom, who practised that vice (Gen. 19).
Contraception was so far outside the Biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned.
For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture, but there is no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft.
Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established, being condemned whenever it is mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of the sin does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned by God."
- Catholic Answers, Morality and Ethics,
(www. catholic.com).

Hence, Dr Marsh, the general drift of your argument can be dismissed.

"Few people realise that up until 1930, ALL Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church's teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in SOME circumstances. Soon the Anglican Church caved in completely, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception".
- op.cit.

Clearly, Dr Marsh, the punishment for committing contraception is death, as Onan discovered. The nation of Italy - Catholic or not - is dying, as both Romano Prodi and Silvio Berlusconi have conceded. Ditto for our own country.
God is not mocked.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Not p****d off, Geoffrey, but somewhat amused at your obsession with contraception, and highly amused that you are so desperate for an argument that you resort to making assumptions about my own private life.

Your comments on this blog bear all the hallmarks of someone who has learned enough to parrot the official rhetoric of a totalitarian institution, but does not have the capacity to think it though.

Your Church's bizarre pronouncements on contraception rank with the Mormon refusal to drink coffee, or more seriously with the Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to accept blood transfusions.

Onan is not relevant to the discussion. He refused to have sex with his brother's widow, as the custom then required, in order to produce an heir for his brother. I do not know of any pronouncement by the Vatican requiring RCs to continue this custom.

What is truly bizarre is that "artificial" contraception is proscribed by the late Paul VI, an elderly bachelor, on the grounds that sex should only be used to procreate. At the same time, those who wish to play "Vatican roulette" can legitimately copulate using the "rhythm" method. As long as there is the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, it is OK to intentionally have un-procreative sex ten times a day so long as time and energy permit.

It would be laughable if it were not so damaging both to so many human lives, and to the reputation of the Christian faith, which has no need of bogus "infallibility" claims by one of its senior leaders. Claims which, as the poster above has pointed out, are not taken seriously even by Italian Catholics.

Finally, Geoffrey, I would like to know which bible you are using. Mine contains no mention of any comment whatsoever by Jesus about contraception or condoms. Or failure to procreate in great numbers.

The only safe method in those days was abstention, but according to the "infallible" Paul VI that too is sinful. The appalling outcome of which is that in parts of the world wives are being forced to have sex with HIV+ husbands, contracting the disease themselves and passing the virus to their children.

It must be right, though. Even though it's not ex cathedra it's still "infallible".

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Presumably he [Our Lord] could say something about it [marriage] without being 'influenced by [his] personal predilection', so why not credit Dr Marsh with the ability to make an objective judgement over the Vatican's refusal to allow condoms in the fight against AIDS in Africa?"
- Christopher, 21 JUL 2008 10:42:31

There is a slight difference between the two, Mr C. Dr Marsh is not the Son of God. He has no authority in the moral realm and all his judgements will be subjective and a reflection of his personal partiality.

[Christopher]

"I do know that you disapprove of the Holy See's condemnation of the use of condoms in Africa to combat Aids. I suggest that your interest in this matter is influenced by your personal predilection."

Then, further along Geoffrey Smith says:

"Our Lord was a young celibate who had a lot to say about marriage..."

Presumably he could say something about it without being "influenced by [his] personal predilection", so why not also credit Dr Marsh with the ability to make an objective judgment over the Vatican's refusal to allow condoms in the fight against AIDS in Africal?

IN the matter of Paul VI's refusal to allow birth control within marriage (apart from the so-called rhythm method) that was the moment when the Church lost the argument with the vast areas of the Catholic world which virtually decided that at least over issues of sexuality the pope was not infallible. After the huge disappointment in Paul VI over the issue the laity seemed quietly to go on as before but something had changed. Just look at the low birth-rate in Italy. Just look at the low turn-out for weekly confession everywhere. Many blame these changes on Vatican II but Humanae Vitae may be equally responsible......or was it just the Zeitgeist at work?

[Geoffrey Smith]

Your arithmetic is a bit shaky, Rick. There are 10 Hail Marys in every decade of the Rosary, not 9. But then, you already knew that, didn't you, you naughty little ex-papist, you ?! Yes, I have noticed it , Rick. I noticed it many years ago, before you were born. It's never stopped me from pleasing Our Lord by honouring His mother in this manner. Since we do not worship her but venerate her as blessed, there is no blasphemy involved.
I suggest you read Luke 1:46-49. That will put you right.

[Geoffrey Smith]

My word, Dr Marsh, you really are pissed off, aren't you? I think I'm getting to you at long, long last. From previous posts in the last few months, I do know that you disapprove of the Holy See's condemnation of the use of condoms in Africa to combat Aids. I suggest that your interest in this matter is influenced by your personal predilection. The sinfulness of contraception goes right back to Onan in the OT, and Humanae Vitae is only the latest promulgation of this truth by the Popes. From the early Church Fathers onwards, this has always been the teaching of the Church. It is not personal opinion, papal or otherwise. You keep wittering on about 'elderly celibates'; Our Lord was a young celibate who had a lot to say about marriage, but that doesn't seem to have deterred you from accepting His teaching on the subject. Unless, of course, you happen to be a divorced man who has 'remarried' while your spouse is still alive, a fairly general situation in the Church of England. In that event, I can well understand your reluctance to accept other teaching on marriage and morality. You, Dr Marsh, are a dupe of the Zeitgeist, an advocate of all that is PC and comfortable in our evil, secular society.
No, Doctor, I am not the one who needs help; you need spiritual first aid and as quickly as possible. Your soul is in danger and you just don't realise it.

[Rick Beekman]

Geoffrey;
You need to go back to The Years 1500 to 1650 when Buddhists at one time Had Beads for prayers. This is where The Jesuits got the Idea for a "Rosary". Speaking of tge "Rosary" Ever notice There are 9 Times more "Hail Mary's" Then "Our Father's"?
So what the RCC is telling us with a Subtil mind...Mary is more important to pray unto then God Almighty...What utter Blasphemy....

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Geoffrey, now I know for certain that you require medical help for a compulsive obsessive disorder!

"All I know about you is that you are an Anglican and you use condoms..."

You know nothing of the kind!

Why this obsession with Humanae Vitae - it is just the opinion of a deceased pope. It has no foundation in scripture or tradition. It is just the opinion of an elderly celibate, advised by a closed circle of elderly celibates. It is not an opinion which is shared by at least 98% of Roman Catholics, and as such is further evidence (not that any is needed) that papal "infallibility" is not what you imagine it to be.

[George Parr]

G'Smith, your unmeasured reference to Anglicans' approval of 'the use of rubber in a vain attempt to fend off the aids virus' is offensive to both Anglicans and those suffering from HIV aids It is curious that a Christian should define differences in faith in these terms. And are you not 'open to doubt'? Maintaining faith depends on it?

So Catholics are all of one mind eh? Tell us another one Geoff! What do you know about 'the mind of Christ' or 'the mind of God'? It is precisely this sort of empty rhetoric that separates you, not only from a semblance of social normality but also, as far as I can see, from other Christians.

The mixed history of icons and statuary, as far as the Orthodox Church goes, belies your glib, simplistic reply to Mr Beekman. The history of their use following ninth century iconoclasm has been within a context of cultural hybridity between a 'pure' Byzantine identity and aspects adopted by the Catholic Church. But then inaccuracy appears to be your strong point...

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Where do these extraordinary Protestant-hating Catholics live?" - KM.

Probably on the same planet as those Catholic-hating Protestants. Yes, KM, there really are such people and they are not nice and friendly.

Mr Beekman: Buddhists don't say the rosary, they have prayer wheels instead.
Maybe you think we Catholics should copy that practice, also?
"What then shall we label people who have statues...icons...rosary beads."
Orthodox, Mr Beekman, Orthodox. Not just Catholics, Orthodox.

Dr Marsh: your understandings and conclusions are certainly provisional but they are far from being honest. All I know about you is that you are an Anglican and you use condoms, or at least you approve of the use of rubber in a vain attempt to fend off the Aids virus. Apart from that, I know nothing of your personal beliefs and devotions. Why not?
Because you are an Anglican. You are a cherry-picker. Your rejection of the Church founded by Christ has left you bereft of any certainty of what Our Lord taught and commanded His apostles and their successors to teach. Hence, the provisional nature of your 'faith'. You are open to doubt and disillusionment, to assert that truth is wrong and falsehood is fact. Like all Anglicans, you are just one individual in an amorphous mass of 'believers', some believing one thing, and some believing the opposite. The astounding thing is, that you think this reflects the mind of Christ, and therefore the mind of God! At least one of your number has had enough of this mind-mutilation and declared his intention of getting out. You should do the same.

[KM]

Fascinating. Like watching bearbaiting.

Where do these extraordinary Protestant-hating Catholics live?

I only know nice friendly ones.

[Rick Beekman]

Geoffrey;

If I am called a "Fundamentalist"; What then shall we label People who have statues..Icons..and Rosary Beads (A product of Buddhism) and some Guy dressed up in "Holy Clothes" and tells everyone he speaks as God on matters of Church beleifs?

Answer; A Pagan church with a Slickmeister as it's head.

[George Parr]

Rick the Beek, as much as it pains me to say it, Geoffrey Smith draws a distinction between you and genuine Christians. Unbelievably, in using the term, he is referring to himself. You, unfortunately, rank among those he determines as 'batshit crazies'. You would be right to consider him deluded on all fronts.

Ho! Ho! This guy is doing a wonderful job for open-minded thought! The more we read, the more his type becomes distinct from all forms of social normality. The arguments for rationality increase and screwy standpoints relying on weighed-down dogma are further diluted.

Having personified Anglicanism in the shape of Alan Marsh, atheism in the form of me and J Pearce, fundamentalist Americans now join the ranks of G'Smith's non-worthies, along with some other Catholics and anyone else who disagrees with him. If you are having difficulty following the line of thought so far - Mr Smith emerges triumphant as the world's greatest Super Christian! He alone will whistle through purgatory, possibly not even stopping, whilst en route to enter the kingdom of heaven. Presumably heaven welcomes biased hardliners with a command of invective!

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mr Smith, I have no desire to leave the Church of England. It sems to me to be far closer to the mind of Christ than the legalistic empire over which the "Supreme Pontiff" (a title belonging to the pagan emperors!) holds sway.

The only honest approach to Christian epistemology is to acknowledge that all our understandings and conclusions are provisional, even if we believe that we can be reasonably confident in our sources and methods of inquiry, and reach definitive conclusions such as the Nicene Creed.

But your Church has invented "infallibility", which it effectively applies to all pronouncements of the pope, who has been effectively deified like the Roman emperors before him.

None of this has any foundation in Christian doctrine, and it continues to separate the many millions of Christians who are members of your church from the wider Christian community.

You evidently regard this as a cause for considerable smugness and triumphalism. Anglicans see it as a tragedy.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"One question does spring to mind, though - have you heard of Mr R Beekman, Geoff?"
- J Pearce, 18 JUL 2008, 21:46:35

Mr Beekman, Mr Pearce, is an American fundamentalist with his own peculiar, idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible. As such, he is strictly a one-off and not really of any concern to genuine Christians like myself. I suppose a British equivalent would be Mr Charles Crosby, a gentleman of some considerable execration for the Catholic Church. I'm afraid I shall have to disappoint you, Mr P. I have far more respect for the Bible than to use it as a stick to whack my opponents.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Dr Marsh has a serious problem. He is an Anglican. As such, he upholds an ecclesiastical system that allows its sectaries to subscribe to whatever beliefs take their fancy. Hence, the turmoil in the state cult, a mayhem now on display at the wafflethon down at Canterbury. What is so objectionable about the attitude of Dr Marsh & co is the implication that, if we listen to what comes out of the Anglican mouth, we are listening to the word of God. The very idea that such irreconcilable opinions can be a true expression of Our Lord's very firm teaching is utterly blasphemous and condemnable. It proclaims that the mind of God is self-contradictory and that not even God knows what is fundamentally right and what is fundamentally wrong. Therefore, Dr Marsh is faced with this dilemma: whether to remain in a Church which is inherently incapable of following Our Lord's command, or to leave and search for another Christian body with an authentic claim to be preaching the Gospel to all nations, and not merely, as in the case of the Anglican Ecclesial Community, to the detritus of the British Empire.

[J Pearce]

”You know, Mr Pearce, I used to think that you were viciously anti-Catholic.”

Hmm…well, only moderately, really.

”With batshit crazies like him out on the streets, I've decided to stop going to evening Mass during the winter.”

You do realise, of course, that “Charles Crosby” is an anagram of “Satans Love Child”, don’t you Geoff? (I am, of course, using the classic 15th century Catholic “Monicker Dissembler” method of interpretation here – tried and tested, the one they caught out Copernicus with, no less – his name being an anagram of “pernicious”, errr…almost. But close enough for the Pope, anyway).

But I digress. Personally Geoff, I have to agree with George – it is indeed entirely a matter of perspective of exactly who the “batshit crazies” are, but full kudos for employing the term anyway.

”You, Mr P, are just a pussy-cat in comparison.”

Well, indeed. Although I feel a mite insulted, I thought I merited at least a “rabid hedgehog” on the scale of aggressive fauna.

One question does spring to mind, though – have you heard of Mr R. Beekman, Geoff? I would pay exceptionally good money to see you two dukeing it out in a no-holds barred, My Religion Is Better Than Yours, Biblical quotations contest.

A veritable Battle of the Giants, no less!

[Geoffrey Smith]

I quote: "Verbal diarrhoea and bull's excrement. You papists are full of it".
- Charles Crosby, 'Holy Smoke', July 18, 2008.

Moot point, Mr Parr? I don't think so. Being a vegetarian, even you should recognise a nut when you see one.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

The problem is not that Mr Smith is a Catholic, but that he does not understand his own religion - the Catechism, the Code of Canon Law, Vatican 2, etc etc - but still vehemently proclaims salus extra ecclesiam non est as a club with which to beat those are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, who has managed down the centuries to alienate a very large proportion of his flock, from East to West.

[George Parr]

It remains a moot point of course, just who the 'batshit crazies' are around here - particularly since in Mr Smith's vicious world of holy cause and effect, some of them appear to be running the asylum. I for one had no idea that being a Catholic was still so dangerous, or that the measuring of degrees of hatred and viciousness figured so highly...

[Geoffrey Smith]

You know, Mr Pearce, I used to think that you were viciously anti-Catholic. Then I came across the posts of someone called Charles Crosby. With batshit crazies like him out on the streets, I've decided to stop going to evening Mass during the winter. It's just not safe leaving home after dark.
You, Mr P, are just a pussy-cat in comparison.

[J Pearce]

Geoff,

Haven't noticed much "Papal affection" for Jews over time. Nor Protestants. Or indeed scientists.

Muslims got it in the neck quite alot as well, if I recall.

Not to mention indigenous Central and South American cultures.

I could go on.

Suffice to say, give me anti-Catholic "vile hatred" anyday, over the rather more terminal advances of Papal authority!

Loved to death, indeed.

[George Parr]

Yes Geoffrey, Fr Mark is absolutely right, the days of privileged authoritarianism are possibly drawing to a close - thankfully. A very hard look at the appalling history of the ways religion has been used for accumulating wealth and preserving personal power via human manipulation, will be required before it ever returns.

Unfortunately you appear to number among those who, rather than express a simple faith, are clinging on to the rusting hulk of a severe socio-political shipwreck; your choice.

For many the prospect of profound theological argument over nothing, together with draconian views on morality is deeply unattractive. Those embroiled within it, some of whom are seeking to explain on a social level why historical pronouncements by an unelected, unfocussed patriarchy should be revered, are presenting as eccentric and limited.

It is a shame in my view that for so long the moral integrity and achievement of human beings have been consistently valued, by some institutions, only in terms of sin and redemption. Mutuality and a long history of human experience deny the assertion that forever absent gods require consistent interpretation by some of us.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"it[the Catholic Church]is not attractive, largely because its leadership is authoritarian and unaccountable".
- Mr Mark, 18 JUL 2008, 11:47:03

Rather like our founder, Jesus Christ, our Blessed Lord, eh, Mr Mark? "He that hears you, hears me, and he that despises you, despises me". Nothing liberal about that, my friend! The Church is very much accountable - to God, not to you, nor to Dr Marsh or any other Anglican.
Not attractive? You should be in Sydney this week for the WYD. Take a look at all the young people there cheering the Pope, and then watch those AREL wackos doing their best to wreck the proceedings with their obscenities, insults and sheer filth. Is that what you prefer, Mr Mark?
Vile hatred rather than papal affection?
You've backed the wrong horse, mister.
Get off it while you can.

[John]

It's a myth that "a large percentage of Anglican clergy who swam the Tiber at the time of the ordination of women came back shortly after". The Church of England conceded that 460+ had gone (it was far higher actually) but only 30 or so came back.

[Fr Mark]

Geoffrey: your triumphalism is out of place. The RC Church is showing all the signs of terminal decline across Europe: it is not attractive, largely because its leadership is authoritarian and unaccountable. Don't forget that a large percentage of Anglican clergy who swam the Tiber at the time of the ordination of women came back shortly after. The cradle Catholics I know are mostly just as "liberal" as the most liberal Anglicans are.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a tide of ultra-conservatism to sweep Europe: the momentum against the RC Church as an authority structure trying to hold society back still has a lot longer to run, and is only just beginning in some formerly strongly RC countries.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Geoffrey's theology is rather reminiscent of the Rules of Cricket As Explained to a Foreigner. "When you in, you go out. When you are out, you go in..."

It makes no difference ultimately whether the pope is infallible sitting in his chair as opposed to a sedan or in the cloakroom. Whatever he says will always be infallible enough for Geoffrey.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Dr Marsh, I am so tired of responding to your blather. I have already said that the Pope can make mistakes as easily as the next man when he gives his personal opinion on a theological matter. Why the bloody hell don't you read my post CAREFULLY before you rush into print? If you don't regard the Pope as infallible, tough, but then of course anything he says or does will not meet with your approval if it conflicts with your own idiosyncratic theology.
I have explained and explained and explained what Catholics mean by papal infallibility, and why we believe in it, but your prejudice is so damned deep and cancerous that you will not even accept the definition of the term as given by the O.E.D. There is no point in continuing this exchange any further. In the coming months we shall see a massive influx of Anglicans into the Catholic Church as a result of Pope Benedict's extension of the Anglican Usage rite, both in America and in Britain, and probably in most parts of the English-speaking world. They will have no problem with papal infallibility.

[Malcolm+]

Geoffrey's "reasoning" is quite smple, Alan. The Pope is infallible except when he isn't infallible, in which case his comments should be nonetheless treated as infallible, including by those who don't believe he's infallible.

Clear as mud.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Geoffrey, you are capable of the most manifest drivel. When is a pope infallible? When he speaks ex cathedra. Except when he is writing as Supreme Pontifff of the Papal States. Or, mysteriously, when he is issuing a document which is not infallible, but is actually...infallible!

Is he infallible when Geoffrey Smith thinks it might be useful to be infallible?

Or did Vatican I simply get it wrong in declaring him infallible? Or did Pius IX infallibly declare himself infallible at the Council?

It's all quite ridiculous and has no justification other than the unfounded claims of Pius IX and his Council - which only Rome recognises as a Council.

Try reading Pius V's Bull (!) again:

He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that he may preserve His faithful people (knit together with the girdle of charity) in the unity of the Spirit and present them safe and spotless to their Saviour.

This is an explicit claim that the pope, as successor of St Peter, has divinely-given power over all kings and rulers. A theological claim. No mention of the papal states. And Pius V was clearly voicing preposterous rubbish - as Pope.

It is indefensible, but no doubt (since you are the arbiter of the Papal Powers) you will not wish to admit that popes make mistakes.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Since Apostolicae Curae was concerned with an important aspect of one of the Church's sacraments, namely the method to be employed in the administration of that sacrament, and since that sacrament had been defined by a number of popes on previous occasions, it follows that AC must be regarded as an equally infallible document, and this was, in fact, the case as Rome made quite clear.
Your posting now has an air of desperation about it as you attempt to respond to the Catholic case. Your wilfulness in rejecting a reasonable explanation of papal infallibility and of why Catholics believe it is indicative of that.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

At last you have got to the point, Geoffrey. The only circumstances in which the pope is "infallible" are when he speaks ex cathedra. (According to Vatican I, which was itself grossly in error).

So let's not have any more of your nonsense about Apostolicae Curae which was NOT delivered ex cathedra. Like many such documents issued by popes, it is not infallible: it is risibly wrong.

[Geoffrey Smith]

What is the matter with you, Alan? You are not normally so slow and obtuse in understanding someone's post. Why does the word 'infallibility' cause you such a difficulty? I will define it for you: Incapable of erring, esp. as attribute of the pope speaking 'ex cathedra', as defined in 1870 by the Vatican Council, O.E.D. Note the words 'ex cathedra'. These are Latin words meaning 'from the teacher's chair', i.e. the Pope must be speaking as the head of the Church and defining - repeat, DEFINING - an article of the Catholic faith. Infallibility has nothing whatsoever to do with any pretentious political ambitions that any pope may entertain. In all other respects, a pope is just as capable of committing error as any other person. Our Lord promised him, through St Peter, divine protection from any form of heresy; He did not promise him immunity from error in other matters. Even as a private theologian the Pope is quite capable of a mistake in expounding his personal point of view, because in that event he would not be speaking 'ex cathedra'. Have I finally got through to you, Alan? I do hope so, there is nothing so wearying as continually harping on such a simple concept in an effort to explain what should be perfectly clear to an intelligent man like yourself.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Yes, Julia, I too am tired of a small minority of our bishops who aid and abet the abuse of the faithful. However, extradition is a political process, reserved for the state, one which is no business of the Church. If the relations between the US and Nigeria do not allow for extradition, you can hardly blame the Church. Nigeria is not, as far as I know, a Catholic country. Far from ensuring that "nothing changes for them", Rome will make sure that Cardinal Law never returns to the US. He will die in exile.

[Julia]

"Perhaps you think Cardinal Law should have been kept under house arrest for the remainder of his life, just in case anything else should come to light?"

Not at all, Mr. Smith. His house was way too luxurious. I was thinking more along the lines of sending him to an ascetic, cloistered monastery, where he could tend the gardens and make jams.

In my final years in the RCC, a priest in our diocese was implicated in the repeated rape of a mentally challenged teenager but when the police went to arrest him, he was nowhere to be found. Months later, he was discovered back in Nigeria and the church refused to extradite him.

I am tired of these bishops aiding and abetting abuse of the faithful. Rome ensures that nothing changes for them while the lives of their victims are scarred forever.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

So, Geoffrey, you have not even bothered to read the short quotation provided! It is not the King of Rome writing: it is the Bishop, claiming divine power - as pope - to depose monarchs.

The pope is as fallible as any other Christian, and his statements carry only the authority of his opinion.