Friday, 1 August 2008

Lambeth: other news reports

Other that is than the opinion article in The Times by Archbishop Henry Orombi which is here.

BBC Robert Pigott Lambeth Diary updated again on 1 August, read No Changing of Minds.

The Times Joanna Sugden Hazy deliberation brings no resolution, just reflection

Guardian Riazat Butt ‘Mini Lambeth’ would be the way forward, say dissatisfied bishops and also Lost property, naked bishops, and the mark of the beast.

Telegraph Martin Beckford Archbishop of Canterbury ‘betrayed churches over gay bishops’ (this covers other topics besides Orombi).

And there are numerous stories about what Bishop Cathy Roskam wrote. See here, here, and here.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 7:53am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Lambeth Conference 2008
Comments

In the light of reports of actual conversations and meetings between parties, verdicts such as "waste of time" for this Lambeth Conference seem as over the top as a Colonial Primate calling Canterbury's appointment "Colonial". It isnt', it's Governmental.

Moreover Canterbury is a Church Province in England.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 8:45am BST

The comments about domestic abuse being a "poor man's disease" or a "third world" or "repressed culture" phenomenom are misplaced. There was an excellent United Nations study a couple of years ago that found that domestic abuse is not confined to one socio-economic group, nor one religion, nor one kind of culture. Actually, domestic abuse is pretty wide spread.

The interesting thing about the study was it found that economic status afforded the women no protection. A women from highly educated and wealthy socio-economic status was no less traumatised than her illiterate and poor counterpart.

"...with some saying it is impossible for a man of the cloth even to consider such a thing." I agree with disproving this assertion. It is the same assertion that claims that if a priest worships Jesus, they are "above sin" and would never violate a child, murder a prophet, abuse a woman or endorse violence and corruption.

Sorry, but worshipping Jesus does not make souls immune from such corruptions.

What is despicable is when groups of priests collude to present a facade that they are above approach (knowingly hiding abuse and ignoring the trauma to victims), and even more despicable when they groom others to spread their corrupt infection.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 9:45am BST

I have heard Bishop Roskam speak about this before. As I recall, she had plenty of evidence to back this claim drawn from stories shared by Anglican women throughout the world.

She is not saying that we Americans or Europeans are better at addressing domestic violence than others. We may be better at hiding it behind official statements deploring it.

But what should alarm all of us is that there are still Christian leaders who use the Bible and their own cultures to justify domestic violence as a "Christian" form of discipline in the household. Some of the leaders who have taught this, +Catherine says, are Anglican Bishops, and most of these Bishops belong to groups who are calling on my Church to repent from welcoming LGBT Christians.

Domestic violence is a problem in every culture, but if there are Bishops who are justifying it with Scripture and Tradition, they should be identified and called to account.

Posted by: Charles Allen on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 1:43pm BST

The pious indignation of the Anglican bishops at Canterbury is disturbing. Of course Bishop Roskum is correct; in a strongly patriarchal society, the abuse of women is likely to be more widespread and more accepted just as the oppression of homosexuals is likely to be more widespread and more tolerated. In most First World countries neither is culturally acceptable although that doesn't mean, of course, that they dont occur. Our bishops need to reflect on the history of child abuse in the US and how such abuse was tolerated by their RC counterparts. There can be no hope for a just world while the churches remain in denial about the position of women and gays in society.

Posted by: Terence Dear on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 2:48pm BST

We have barely reached a place in the United States where domestic violence against women is legally and culturally unacceptable. Women do not enjoy even that tenuous status in most of the developing world. Why is it wrong to state that?

+Roskam did not say that men from the developing world were any MORE likely to beat their wives---just that they probably faced less cultural opprobrium for doing so. And she's right.

Stating the obvious is not sexist, racist, or anything else negative. Sometimes the truth hurts. Honest people will deal with the issue at hand, rather than creating a firestorm over something +Roskam never said.

Posted by: Doxy on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 3:38pm BST

"Delegates at Canterbury have been upset at her suggestion that bishops beat their wives, with some saying it is impossible for a man of the cloth even to consider such a thing."

Well, given their attitudes towards homosexuality, I don't think it's all that unbelievable, actually. If +Akinola and +Orombi can't actually condemn violence against gay people, what are we to think? As to colonialism, what does it say that a white bishop was required to make the statement opposing anti-gay violence that they couldn't make? All the same, it is pretty insulting for her to come out with a blanket evidenceless statement that some bishops at Lambeth probably beat their wives. If she's so sensitive and all, couldn't she see how damaging such a statement would be, whether or not she thinks it true? If I were an African, I'd be incensed at this Western descendant of colonialists looking down her nose at me. And Cheryl is right, the implication that domestic violence is limited to certain classes shows her lack of understanding of the issue. Then again, this is coming from the media who are more infatuated with the sound bite than with accuracy, so how accurate is this quote in representing what she actually meant? What I think is despicable is the idea that domestic violence is something men do to women. It cuts both ways, and we need to acklnowledge that. Women can be abusers as well, much as "progressives" don't seem to want to face that fact.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 5:08pm BST

Figures abound. Interpretations are legion...

Someone on the HOB/D said 1 woman in 4 is beaten in the USA.

Does any among you know when "disciplining the wife" was last permitted/advocated in the laws of your countries?

In Sweden it was in 1908. 1 woman in 5 is still beaten by her husband/partner, according to statistics (and my own listening experiences).

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 5:31pm BST

"such abuse was tolerated by their RC counterparts"

True, Terrence, but it was also tolerated by Anglicans. We in Canada are paying the price for our Church's collusion in a governmental policy of deculturation and assimilation of native people into "Canadian society". It resulted in physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of at least two generations of native children, many of whom we stole from their families and proceeded to brainwash into believing everything about their cultures was evil, even forcing them to abandon their languages, often beating them if they slipped and "accidently" spoke their mother tongue instead of the English that was forced upon them. That sin belongs to us, not the Romans, and we can't rest on very holy laurels any more than they can. I wonder what our role was in the even worse treatment of Australian native people, and how they regard the holiness of the AbP of Sydney.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 1 August 2008 at 7:45pm BST

The Canadian & c school experience was paralleled in the North of Sweden with the children of Finns and Sámi.

It was very much a 20th century Social policy issue (dating from 1890) together with Sterilizations, Mental hospitals, Euthanasia and the like. Institutionalizing.

All considered "progressive" ideas, in the best intentions - many of them n o t from Germany (late on this) but America.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Saturday, 2 August 2008 at 7:08am BST

"All considered "progressive" ideas, in the best intentions - many of them n o t from Germany (late on this) but America."

Hence my mistrust of those who use the word "progressive" to describe themselves. Like "orthodox" it is subject to being defined by those using it to mean "those who think as I do."


Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 4 August 2008 at 2:45pm BST
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.