Gosh this is all so -er - new. Never before have I heard such talk !

And good heavens lesbians and gay may be admitted to the anglican churches ? !

What planet are some folks on ? And why are so many anglo-catholic churches like the gay clubs of yester-year ?

It's not a Church, it's a Communion. TEC, move on.

"Traditionalists are afraid that the further the Anglican Communion goes in creating openings for women in the clergy, for married clergy, and openly gay clergy, the less it will be able to claim any kinship with the Roman Catholic Church, which is against all these things. They say that if you go too far down this slippery slope, tolerating modern views of sexuality, you will just find yourself on the path of Protestant individualism. - Paul Elie: art.Atlantic monthly -

Perhaps Paul Elie, in his article about Archbishop Rowan, has hit the nail on the head about the problems Rowan has in balancing the various viewpoints in Anglicanism, on each of the subjects he mentions here - all exceopt for the matter of 'married clergy' which even the Anglo-Catholics among us no longer rebel against.

Perhaps the most important reason given by the traditionalists whom Elie has spoken to; for their
opposition to women and gays in the clergy; is that they are afraid that, to give in on the liberal view would be to widen the barrier between the Church of England and Rome. This, of course, is no longer a matter of contention with other Churches in the Communion who have already ordained women as priests and bishops, and who have indicated their welcoming into ministry of gays in a faithful relationship with their partners. This, then, is realy a matter of contention at the moment only for the C.of E.

However, Rowan still has to reconcile different attitudes - not only in the C.of E., but also in the Communion as a whole. It is in this difficult arena that his eirenic gifts may be most useful.
It may be that, consonant with Rowan's tendency to move slowly on these issues, Rome might be persuaded, by its own constituency, to move forward on, for instance; the wholesale ordination of married men (in place of the 'ad hoc' ordinations taking place already) and, who knows, perhaps even women? Rome, down under, is already running out of younger clergy with fewer vocations to the priesthood. This may require a new strategy.

It would not be the first issue on which the Anglican Church has led the way. And if Rowan as ABC can help this process forward by maintaining his characteristic ecumenical caution, then the prospect of Unity in Diversity, for which Ecclesia Anglicana has long been respected, might still be a possible 'way through' these crises.

I thought it was an excellent article. Impossible too not to be moved in reading it and ever more strengthened in one's conviction as an Anglican.

Also a great interview with the writer himself. And what a fine end. Pity the voice of 'official' Roman Catholicism (which is of course very minority within that church and generally disregarded by its members) is so lacking in such generosity of spirit.

Thinking Anglicans, please think! Otherwise you will look like the bored and boring-looking individuals (some allegedly very distinguished) so graphically captured in the photos.

Elie states: The Anglican Communion alone, Elie writes, “has sought to have it both ways: at once affirming traditional Christian notions of marriage and family, love and fidelity, and adapting them to the experiences of gay believers.”

Have Evangelicals respected the marriage Covenant with their acceptance of divorce...which Province of the Anglican Communion still bans re-marriage?

What about the compromise over polygamy...what a poor article.

Exactly what is your real objection to the article about Paul Elie, Robert? Was it just because your favourite word 'divorce' was not mentioned. I'm afraid you're going to have to find better reasons for bringing up that subject. It is largely a non-issue at the moment - even, I might suggest, with many Roman Catholics. Except that they probably would prefer to use the 'in' word, which is 'annulment'. But what, I wonder, is the substantive difference?