Saturday, 16 February 2008

opinions after General Synod

Terry Philpot writes about Catholic care homes in the Guardian’s Face to Faith column.

Usama Hasan writes in The Times about What is Sharia?

Giles Fraser writes in the Church Times that the Democrats now do God.

Christopher Howse following the archbishop’s lead tells more Ronald Knox jokes in When Islam and the C of E unite.

Craig Brown tries to be amusing in Dr Rowan Williams’ ‘Cat Sat On The Mat’.

And for a real contrast to that, try the sermon given by Rowan Williams at the memorial service for Charlie Moule last weekend.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 16 February 2008 at 8:30am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Opinion

In his prolonged and protracted assessment and evaluation of the ligual capablenesses of the Archbishop, Craig Brown does tend to obnubilate the precise form and nature of the issue of communicatability regarding this primate among equals of the Anglicans, and it would have been more illustrative had he chosen a richness of back and forth terminology by which to express the matter.

Posted by: Pluralist on Saturday, 16 February 2008 at 1:00pm GMT

A lovely sermon on Charlie Moule - NB Moule was I think very particular that his book be titled 'Origin' not 'Origins' [of Christology] since he believed in a unitary origin.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Saturday, 16 February 2008 at 6:16pm GMT

what about the excellent piece by rod liddle in the spectator?

Posted by: poppy tupper on Saturday, 16 February 2008 at 6:20pm GMT

people (men) of my generation who were taught by moule used to tell affectionately the story of how would always walk into a lecture room, peopled by more women undergraduates than men, look around and begin, 'Gentlemen'. i never really saw the reason for the affection.

Posted by: poppy tupper on Sunday, 17 February 2008 at 10:09am GMT

Thanks to Ron Liddle, Quote:
Clearly, he (RW) is absolutely incapable, intellectually and morally, of confronting inhumanity perpetrated in the name of religious

I am not yet so angry - Canterbury after all has considerable importance to me as an Anglican believer, but not yet so great a power to force me to do anything big or small against my pilgrim's conscience in daily life, ethics, or theologies. I do feel worried.

After all, when Canterbury ceases to light our paths, a good lamp of Anglican church life has gone dim.

But, since Lord Carey before Rowan Williams blazed or re-blazed so many of those intellectually retrograde intellectual trails already - RW was hoped to be a relief and an improvement. Sad, reluctant tip of the hat to old Maggie Thatcher. Canterbury as a keen and deadly knife in the back of learning and correction, who wudda thought?

Carey so far has pretty much carried the day, a deft turning down of the lights of any significant Anglican change. Now, apparently progressive to moderate Anglican believers are fearful to speak up clearly, lest even more dreadful things be said or done in God’s name.

What an upside down Anglican day, when Canterbury seems to be losing his (or her, we can always hope?) voice - reduced to short hand, whispers, mumbles ... and the likes of Akinola, Sugden, Gomez, Venebles ... seem emboldened to shout louder and louder and louder, as if din could fill ethical and theological vacuums.

How much, still, do we sense the nasty and outrageous biblical trash talk of Leviticus Abomination, still leering behind all the milder, pat, condemning phrases?

Isn't one of the more forceful presumptions of conservative believers, still, that same sex pairbonding unmakes the best powers of any aspiring Alpha Male, even among Anglican believers?

Isn't this still part of what queer folks are supposed to be uniquely sorry for getting involved in?

No thanks to the real modern fact that no queer person is much really involved in any Alpha Male aspirations, except ordinary and blessed citizen competencies in daily life whenever a modern democracy will permit somebody to do so?

Posted by: drdanfee on Sunday, 17 February 2008 at 6:32pm GMT

Disgusted that legitimate opponents of ARCIC "agreements" were again stifled by the Bishops.

Disgusted at the two faced actions of the Vatican, allowing IARCUM to be run by liberal Catholics, whilst on a doctrinal level reasserting hard line Romanism.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Sunday, 17 February 2008 at 10:29pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.