Friday, 10 December 2010

Anglicans on wikileaks

At last! Something about Anglicans has appeared on wikileaks.

Read WikiLeaks: Pope’s offer to Anglicans risked ‘violence against Catholics’ at the Guardian by Andrew Brown, Robert Booth and Heather Brooke.

The British ambassador to the Vatican warned that Pope Benedict XVI’s invitation to Anglican opponents of female priests to convert en masse to Catholicism was so inflammatory that it might lead to discrimination and even violence against Catholics in Britain, according to a secret US diplomatic cable.

Talking to an American diplomat after the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, met the pope in November 2009, Francis Campbell said the surprise Vatican move had placed Williams “in an impossible situation” and “Anglican-Vatican relations were facing their worst crisis in 150 years as a result of the pope’s decision”.

Read the full text of the cable itself here.

See also this cable.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 10 December 2010 at 10:40pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Church of England

Yes. I don't know about you, but upon hearing of the new ordinariate, my first response was: let's head on down to St Vincent de Paul and beat up a few nuns.

Posted by: rjb on Saturday, 11 December 2010 at 2:03am GMT

There was, of course, an earlier simulation of the 'Wiki Leaks' scandal. It appeared among the odd philosophical maunderings of that vitriolic site 'virtueonline' in the United States, which purports to provide an unique perspective of the 'Global Orthodox Anglican' goings-on - mostly in North America. GAFCON and its associates are ill-served by this particular sort of slander:

David Virtue, under the selective title of 'satire' has published a most scurrilous account of various supposed conversations of the TEC Presiding Bishop, which he pretends to have 'listened in on' and which could be the substance of litigation - if it were not published in that category on the world-wide-web. Virtue's 'virtue' was certainly notable by its absence in this particular bit of social gossip.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Saturday, 11 December 2010 at 6:23am GMT

How do diplomatic cables differ from blog entries?

Answer: You get paid for writing them.

How do diplomats differ from supermarket trollies?

Answer: You fill both with good things, but the trolley has a mind of its own.

Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II on Saturday, 11 December 2010 at 7:39am GMT

'The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating abuse of children by priests and was angered when they were summoned from Rome' - Isn't this aspect of the Guardian report rather more important?

Posted by: Richard Ashby on Saturday, 11 December 2010 at 10:26am GMT

@Richard Ashby. It may be more important, but it is hardly new. The refusal to respond to a request that officials of the CDF travel to Dublin to testify to the committee was widely publicised at the time. Francis Campbell's remarks were not.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on Saturday, 11 December 2010 at 11:24am GMT

Agreed with Richard, although I think Simon was commenting on the Anglican angle of the Vatican Correspondence...

Well worth reading all of it.

I think 'Spirit of Vatican II' would particularly enjoy this quote:

The harshest public criticism for the [Anglican] decision has come from a former friend of the Pope, the Swiss theologian Hans Kung... For all its color, Kung's criticism is not influential with mainstream Catholics, according to an Embassy contact who is himself skeptical about the wisdom of the apostolic constitution. Kung, XXXXXXXXXXXX adds, comes across as personally bitter and has used such a strong language in criticizing the Pope that moderate reformists would not want to be associated with him or his opinion pieces: "with Kung, it is all about Kung."

Sounds accurate to me...

Posted by: Jakian Thomist on Saturday, 11 December 2010 at 12:42pm GMT

"Virtue's 'virtue' was certainly notable by its absence in this particular bit of social gossip."

I don't read Virtue at all. His vitriol and prejudice and homophobia make for a toxic mix. His wrriting about matters of sexuality is often crude. He has dissed KJS, and nastily, from the moment of her election. I am content to have others report on his doings.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Saturday, 11 December 2010 at 1:45pm GMT

Yes, Richard Ashby, I do believe the more important point is the lack of and unwillingness of the Vatican power holders to embrace TRANSPARENCY when it comes to investigations of child abuse by priests and some of the Roman Catholic bishops. This is the subject that seems to be causing so many to turn their backs on Roman Catholicism. In doing so, many are choosing to become Anglicans, at least this is so in America. The Vatican's refusal to allow its' own officials to testify before the Irish commission is just the tip of the iceberg on this topic. Many Vatican II minded Catholics believe the men in Rome who hold all of the power are turning their attention to the investigation of American Catholic Women's Religious Orders to divert attention away from this topic. This effort has also failed and the power holders had no idea that the reactions of lay Catholics to the "witch hunts" of American Sisters would be so angry. Again, throwing in this red herring about violence against those Anglicans who choose to become Roman Catholics because they do not agree with women's ordination to the priesthood and episcopate, belongs somewhere in Fantasyland.

Posted by: Chris Smith on Saturday, 11 December 2010 at 4:35pm GMT

Here's a commentator, who seems to me to be saying that what this shows is that the US diplomat didn't understand what she was being told by the UK diplomat. That seems entirely plausible to me.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 11 December 2010 at 6:24pm GMT

I agree - clueless diplomats are regrettable. I know nothing about this person's background or education.

I will say that your average US college student knows next to nothing about the Reformation and the religious violence so widely practiced by all sides. They are even innocent of knowing what a bunch of bigots the early settlers of the US were.

Ask them why the Puritans came to New England and they will say 'religious freedom.' And of course that's right if you agree with the Puritans. If not, not so much. Hence Rhode Island.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Saturday, 11 December 2010 at 8:30pm GMT

This simply reflects employing a Northern Irish Catholic (not trained as a diplomat)as our Ambassador to the Vatican.

Posted by: robert ian williams on Sunday, 12 December 2010 at 7:46am 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.