Cardinal Dias diagnosed cases of Anglican Altzeimer's. He himself is accused of the same New Age softening by traditionalists: http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B054_DiasHinduDeity.shtml. Like Archbishop Deng he needs to come down closer to where people are living.

Benedict XVI and John Paul II are seen as crypto-Buddhist by the same critics. http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A122rcBuddhistRatzinger.htm

If only rc bishops were more Buddhist and more crypto--it would help !

Maybe a bit o/t to this post, but Mark Vernon, whom I have discovered on TA has written about Sudan and Bp Robinson

http://www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline/dotclear/index.php?2008/07/23/1013-sudan-is-at-war-should-gene-robinson-resign

Cardinal Diaz continues to tilt against a straw man secularism of his own arugmentative perceptions, just as observors outside faith communities often fail to grasp an insider's view and understanding.

I for one will take modernity over the fantasy comparisons - i.e., the high medieval period? - when it comes to global life. Yes we have struggles and problems in this century. Still one may be deeply grateful that we need not be blinded by all the items on the corrections lists to quite the same extent as before - we are not sustaining quite the degree of no questions asked basic illiteracy, non-existent healthcare, and innumerable superstititous folks beliefs dressed up on high holy days as as godliness - witches, sex magick, earthquakes as divine punishments, well the list of medieval follies does go on a bit.

And what is this constant trashing of Buddhists, as if they were innately a terrible sort? Who is patting whom on the back every time that sort of comparison is made across world religions? Does the good cardinal feel mandated by God to especially save me from reading and understanding and possibly being deeply moved by the great Buddhist literatures? If so, what sense does that make? Holier than thou smugness, too much in love with medievalisms, tilts towards a sour witness to Jesus of Nazareth indeed. And to congratulate oneself for being the unique and special voice of life, speaking loudly to modernity defined as nothing but death - well gee, I hear that as pretty smug.

If we were all young and back in college, somebody in the crowd would no doubt be tempted to tell the good cardinal to come down off his high horse and see if he could get a life. Alzheimer's, oh yeah, buddy. So now, reading peer reviewed science journals gives people spiritual Alzheimer's. Got it. Thanks for the tip.

And I thought that Pope Benedict had said he's not making any public comment on Anglican doings, specifically the CofE synod vote on women bishops, right? But the Pope must have approved what Cardinal Diaz was going to say, right? (It's a very top-down church, innit?) But this calling our troubles Alzheimer's and Parkinson's demeans and minimizes the real effects of this terrible affliction on the real people who live with it every day! I would ask Cardinal Diaz, where is the charity in his words? Does he 'respect the diginity' of his fellow humans? This kind of name-calling and labeling makes me vomit (on both sides of the issue). It's akin to the saying women and lesbigay clergy have some sort of psychological disorder, back in the days when women were struggling to even become postulants for holy orders! (I remember in the mid 1970s a bishop told a friend of mine that she was just plain nuts to even think of becoming ordained.) Shame!

- Jay

I think we 'liberals' should engage with this. It's a terrific statement, humbling, moving, informative, full of practicality and love and compassion and devotion to Anglicanism. This from 'homophobic' bishops (I dislike the term as inaccurate but it will do). My conclusion is that, while not abating one jot from our support for 'gay rights' (again inaccurate but it will do), we also support these outstandingly virtuous Anglicans in their noble efforts to help their people - and not only Christians but also Muslims. On a base level, so far as Anglican politics is concerned, although the two statements are not formally incompatible, I think I see some sort of 'quid pro quo' here. They did what they had to do about homosexuality - partly prompted, no doubt, by opportunist American conservatives, partly responding to ONE aspect of their own thinking - but they want 'in' and don't want anyone else 'out'.

Amen, John!

The atrocities in Sudan going back quarter of a century is serious, not to be played around with by irresponsible clerics such as +Deng.

Reality from Sudan: http://black-gay-arab.blogspot.com

Reality from Uganda: http://gayuganda.blogspot.com

Reality from the USA: http://my-manner-of-life.blogspot.com