Saturday, 15 January 2011

Comments

I don't think I am particularly bigoted/particularly anti-RC. Nonetheless, the language employed - 'the Decree of Erection' - is deeply farcical and (surely) deeply misogynist.

Posted by: john on Saturday, 15 January 2011 at 7:46pm GMT

This will be spun many ways, especially by those who see this a capitulation to the "One True Church" and a triumph of conviction. There are those who will say that this is the answer to the evils of liberalism. Nevertheless, to be a bit more irreverent, or perhaps realistic, one cannot avoid seeing this event as part of the Papacy's centuries-long campaign to win back the English Church, but this time on the backs of women, gays (well, maybe) and other undesirables. It seems somewhat absurd, yet true to the sense of repressed sexuality and the confusion and fear of sexual and gender issues in the Roman Church, that the real agenda is ensuring that everyone in the sanctuary, at least vested, has a penis and is straight-or at least the first of these. They can pretend about the second. A great celebration of the dominance of males and the need for a male sex organ for ordained ministry took place at Westminster Cathedral. This is exactly what Jesus told us we should be doing.

Posted by: Adam Armstrong on Saturday, 15 January 2011 at 8:36pm GMT

Interesting -- I wonder if Robert Crouse would have swum had he lived??

Posted by: Someone on Saturday, 15 January 2011 at 10:46pm GMT

"I can look back at over 35 years of ordained ministry with tremendous gratitude. The Church of England nourished me in the Christian Faith and it was within her that I discovered, as a teenager, my vocation to the ordained ministry which has involved service both in England and Africa".

Sounds to me like he doesn't agree with the RC position on Anglican Orders.

Posted by: Tim Chesterton on Saturday, 15 January 2011 at 11:17pm GMT

'The establishment of the Ordinariate is clearly intended to serve the wider and unchanging aim of the full visible unity between the Catholic Church and the members of the Anglican Communion.'

This - from Fr Marcus Stock - along with similar approving comments from existing RCs and others in the blogosphere - remains (to me) utterly bemusing, and not particularly amusing. Is this the new RC definition of Christian Unity: that all other Christians should become RCs?

I thought we were agreed on our common baptism, by which we become Christian; that the terminal embarrassment of Apostolicae Curae had been diplomatically overcome; and that ARCIC pronouncements were of some stature in relation to the theological perspectives we have in common, so that we might grow together in faith and informed tolerance, leading to the acceptance of both similarity and difference.

I can understand the 'requirement' for ordination to be regularised within a jurisdiction, and I don't myself see this as an explicit or implied denial of anything which has previously occurred. But running through all this RC ecclesiology is that the only way for Christians to be united is for them to become RC - which I think is a ridiculous and arrogant aspiration; and is indeed a real and present denial of the intrinsic faith and ecclesial value of other Christian traditions.

The manipulation of the episcopal status of Keith Newton as an ex-officio member of the Catholic Bishops' Conference, by virtue of his being the Ordinary of the Ordinariate, but as a non-bishop because he has a wife still living (!) is Rome at its very worst. Ducking and diving, smoke and mirrors, at the highest level. At least these bishops who wouldn't countenance women priests are getting a taste of their own bigoted medicine!

I cannot (now) conceive of any circumstances in which I would become an RC; and I think the whole Ordinariate is tripe dressed up as Beef Wellington. Because I remain a Christian, I cannot but wish those who swim the Tiber towards Rome anything but God Speed. But I fear that many will find the other bank a rocky and less congenial place to lay their heads than they have (in some cases for many years) imagined, but have never quite had the courage to go, because they knew it would be alien to them.

Patrimony apart, if those in transit have anything to take with them - unfortunately, Cathedral Evensong doesn't travel well - I fear they will find themselves in an environment where their freedom of thought and expression is seriously curtailed unless discreetly retained within the context of the most-trusted of the Ordinariate membership, where they can remain walled-up, secure in the knowledge that they have personally contributed towards Christian Unity, and the Conversion of England (and Wales) for which they have prayed for so long.

Posted by: Peter Edwards on Saturday, 15 January 2011 at 11:58pm GMT

The language on here is emotive already. I am often puzzled by the type of comment from Adam Armstrong above which is both crude and offensive and asserts a level of knowledge and certainty which not even a Pope would be comfortable with. Clearly for Adam sex and sexuality is a major issue but for most of us it is just one aspect of what it is to be human. There is no point arguing the issues but can we please at least respect each others right to a different view and argue using reason and logic rather than abuse and polemic.

Attacking the RC Church is always popular I know but today's Mass at Westminster Cathedral was joyous and the Archbishop in all that he said and did was deeply respectful of the Anglican heritage and spoke highly of it. There was a huge congregation (around 2,500) most of whom were Anglicans or former Anglicans. The applause was loud and long to great the 3 new Priests, their wives presented the vestments in which they were clothed. Please pray for them and, particularly, Fr Keith Newton as he begins his work as the Ordinary and for all those of us on a pilgrimage of faith, wherever it may lead us.

Posted by: a seeker after truth on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 12:57am GMT

I have also been a priest (Canadian Anglican) for 35 years and a Cathedral Canon. I have no sympathy for people who have had all the perks of office as bishops and the relative financial security of serving in the CofE who think that causing scandal and hurt is a good way to end their ministry, especially since retirement near and they have little to lose. They have fomented dissension in Anglican ranks and now will be trying to bring people with them. The reason: to get away from women, gays, and liberals. A noble one at that. I am more disappointed with Rome than with them, since there can't be any other interpretation than the fact that they are thumbing their noses at the Anglican Church and Rome is giving them a platform to do it.

Posted by: Richard Grand on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 4:01am GMT

So the old men in the Vatican have gotten together with some old men in the CofE to ensure that they can keep women out of their club. Not their finest hour.

Posted by: Derek Gagne on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 4:34am GMT

As a letter writer to the Telegraph said, they were Anglicans pretending to be Roman Catholics and now they will be Roman Catholics pretending to be Anglicans. The more this seeps in, the more absurd it all seems.

Posted by: Richard Grand on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 4:45am GMT

Curious that Keith Newton's biography is listed under "Bishops". The biography itself makes it clear that he is a priest, and not a bishop. As I understand the Ordinariate's rules, he is ineligible for ordination to the episcopate as a married man.

Posted by: Nom de Plume on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 4:59am GMT

Do the Vatican ever give up? The Spanish bishops are aiming at a reconquista of Spain (where Catholics are being "persecuted" by the Zapatero dictatorship, which has banned auto-da-fe's). The reconquest of England, as urged by Professor Eamon Duffy in his "Fires of Faith," is another undying dream. Past glories is all they seem to think about.

Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 8:31am GMT

Richard, the scandal is that the General Synod of the Church of England has gone back on its promise made in 1992 that there would be a continuing place for those of us who in conscience could not accept the innovation of Ordaining Women. Please remember, we have not changed our view we hold the traditional view but the Church of England has moved away from us. The GS had indicated through many votes that there will be no provision for the minority and the tone of GS discussions has turned extremely hostile towards us. The legislation to allow the Ordination of women Bishops also removes resolutions A and B and rescinds the Act of Synod under which the flying Bishops were created. The space in which legitimate dissent was allowed is being removed - if any other minority group was treated like this there would be outrage but the liberal authoritarians who currently run the CofE will not tolerate dissent.

You have a strange view of the work of Bishops. The Bishops now have no homes in which to live because the housing went with the job. Unlike in the USA and Canada the clergy are not paid enough to be able to buy houses and build up savings so the choice they have made does come at huge financial cost to them as it will to the 50 or so Priests who will join the Ordinariate in the "first wave". They will have no accommodation and no income and are taking a leap of faith. So, before you judge these men so harshly you need to check your facts. These "flying Bishops" have been run ragged looking after 400 parishes between them spread over a large geographical area. They have brought light and hope and produced GROWTH in the parishes in their care. I am not at all sure what hurt and scandal you are referring to. The 3 active Bishops have shown great restraint in the face of extreme provocation and they have now done the honourable thing and followed their conscience. There is no denying or negating of what has gone before just a "a parting of friends".

Posted by: a seeker after truth on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 9:35am GMT

More generally, I am here, in the midst of it in London attempting to stay in the Church of England. The hatred and anti-Roman Catholic sentiment expressed by Anglicans on many of these blogs is deeply depressing particularly as the week of prayer for Christian Unity gets under-way. I wonder in what way some have you have worked with or intend to work with the largest Christian denomination in the World - the very rock from which we were all hewn.

Posted by: a seeker after truth on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 9:36am GMT

"Is this the new RC definition of Christian Unity: that all other Christians should become RCs?

Oh, please--there's nothing new about that. Remember, according to the Vatican, the rest of us (of any denomination) don't really belong to "churches", just social organizations that pretend to be churches.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 11:47am GMT

Again the claim is made (this time by 'a seeker after truth') that 'there will be no provision for the minority'.

It is simply not true that no provision has been made for the minority. The draft legislation makes provision for those who cannot in conscience accept women priests or women bishops. It requires bishops to implement the code of practice in an acceptable local format. It ensures that no parish will be forced to accept a woman presiding at the eucharist if it does not wish to do so. This is pastoral provision, and it is proposed and made with care. Some people may not think this is sufficient provision, but I am not arguing whether that is correct or not -- simply that it is not true that there is no provision.

Posted by: Simon Kershaw on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 2:27pm GMT

To Seeker-These bishops are now nearing retirement and must have already considered where they will live and support themselves, even as CofE bishops. They would have looked before they leapt and will not be destitute. No doubt they have arrangements neither you nor I would know. As for your comments about anti-Roman sentiment, I have always had a high regard for the Roman Church and its clergy. What you are seeing is a predictable reaction from Anglicans who are now being portrayed as the offenders. The triumphalism of all of this, which went away for a few decades after Vatican II has returned "with a vengeance". Literally. Rome is the One True Church and, at best, the Anglican Church is an "ecclesial body". A bit of resentment over this treatment, especially by a Church with its own serious issues and fences to mend, is understandable. The Roman Church has been treating all as sub-Christian for centuries and their tune hasn't changed.

Posted by: Adam Armstrong on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 2:28pm GMT

From the editorial in the Observer today (16 January 2011)

It is only institutional religion that continues to regard women as second-class citizens. If Catholicism believes that recruiting a handful of renegade Anglicans who share its institutional misogyny will buttress its position it is mistaken.

Meanwhile, those aspects of the church beneficial to the whole of society – its work for social justice, with the poor, the marginalised – are once again pushed into the background. Many British Catholics who want no part of this game of ecclesiastical power politics are left despairing. Those of other faiths or none, and of even moderately enlightened disposition, will be more inclined to turn their backs in anger.

Posted by: Richard Ashby on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 2:46pm GMT

I think it is awful to say that a person who accepts the teaching of the Catholic Church that women can not be ordained is a misogynist.That would then include millions of women.

Men and women have different gifts and callings...its not a question of inequality.Its also not a question of power but of service.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 4:42pm GMT

Speaking as an American member of the Episcopal Church, I have to say I take a different position on the Ordinariate from many who have posted here. I think the theological positions that have persuaded these Anglicans to join the Ordinariate are wrong -- dead wrong. I agree that these converts may find the farther shore of the Tiber less appealing than it looks now, once they have been on it for a time. However, I respect the integrity of their choice, though I disagree with it.

They are not doing what our own Dissenters have attempted to do. They are not trying to seize control of the Church of England, with its riches in the form of real estate and endowments. They are not slandering their own church to other Anglicans. (Yes, there have been some inappropriate remarks, but nothing like the sustained viciousness that has been directed against our Presiding Bishop.) They have not "activated the Primates" in attempts to have their own church removed from the Anglican Communion, and they are not boycotting meetings because they are unlikely to get their own way.

They are going, homeless and penniless, to the Anglican Ordinariate of the church they now believe is their true home.

I understand that there is an anti-Catholic bias written into English school history ("Broody Mary" and all that.) Could that be where some of this is coming from? I was very struck by how near the surface the sentiments were.

For the record, I am (unfashionably) a great admirer of William of Orange and the Glorious Revolution. I certainly don't believe everything Eamon Duffy says about English Catholicism (and neither did a long line of my ancestors, proleptically).

Posted by: Charlotte on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 5:30pm GMT

"For doctrinal reasons the Church does not, in any circumstances, allow the ordination of married men as Bishops." St Peter's mother-in-law? I Corinthians 9.5?

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 6:19pm GMT

"Men and women have different gifts and callings...its not a question of inequality.Its also not a question of power but of service."

Then why is it that women's call to service always puts them in a position of lesser power than that of men, in the eyes of the church?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 6:47pm GMT

("Broody Mary" and all that) - I hadn't thought of her like that, but she probably did brood a lot ... sorry, can't resist, since I am also a great one to mistype in funny ways. Haste may make waste, but it also makes humor!

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 7:01pm GMT

Charlotte
"Could that be where some of this is coming from? I was very struck by how near the surface the sentiments were."

For a group of people that is, of course, quite possible.

A larger number of contemporary people, though, dislikes the Catholic's immoral ban on condoms ( until recenty without exception), it's rigid views of sex, divorce, contraception, gay people... all seemingly imposed without compassion and an awareness what real people's lives are like.

Contemporary people simply don't believe in the idea that a small Magisterium of aged single men claims the supposedly God-given privilege of telling them what to believe, to think and how to act, far less that it alone speaks God's truth.

To my mind, Catholicism, although the largest Christian denomination in the world, is at a crossroads. If it can retain the best of its spirituality and lose the worst of its focus on all things to do with sex, and if it can become a little more humble, it will remain a great denomination.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 7:28pm GMT

'They are going, homeless and penniless...'. Charlotte - that is the position some would like us to believe but it just isn't true. They have been paying into the Church of England pension fund (and maybe others if they worked in other areas before being ordained) and they will get out of it their pensions at the appropriate time in proportion to what they have paid in. Going to Rome doesn't deprive them of their pensions any more than changing a job would.

As for housing, we don't know their individual financial circumstances. They undoubtedly will have lost the help which the church gives to its retired priests and bishops but many priests and bishops do acquire property during their ministry in preparation for their retirement without the aid of the church. However it is worth remebering that Andrew Burnham has himself revealed that he didn't become a Roman Catholic until his financial circumstances permitted it.

Clearly it may be more difficult for any younger men who wish to follow them but two things have to be said. The Church of England has been ordaining women for twenty years now. If they don't like it why wait until now to go, or why get ordained into a church which does things you fundamentally can't accept? And secondly, how strongly are these priciples held? We now know that Andrew Burnham's were clearly not strong enough to outweigh his financial concerns. Surely others can't share what seems to me to be the same lack of principle?

You may argue that the intention of the Act of Synod was to ensure that those who have objections in conscience to the ordination of women had an honourable place within the Church of England. We also now know that Andrew Burnham, in particular, had, as his covert intention in establishing the 'See of Ebbsfleet', a mechanism for the corporate reunion of his parishes, priests, buildings etc with the Church of Rome. In inviting, encouraging and sponsoring vocations what sort of deception has been practised on these ordinands? They now find that what they expected, a home within the Church of England, has been left leaderless. What happens to them? The Church of England is going to be moving on. The PEV experiment has failed, not, it might be said, by any action of the Church itself, but through the defection of the leaders of those who are supposed to have an 'honourable place'. Amongst other things it is an abdication of responsibility and some are really going to suffer.

Posted by: Richard Ashby on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 9:01pm GMT

Thank you Simon for agreeing my points about the removal of Resolutions A and B and the rescinding of the Act of Synod ie the removing all of the present provisions most particularly the Act of Synod which Parliament insisted on as a condition for allowing the Measure to receive Royal assent. It is precisely this collective amnesia which has caused us to push for a strong, binding legal provision. Quite frankly, the General Synod has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to keep to its word.

At present, the Code of Practice does not exist - not even in draft form - and so there is not yet any provision. But you are right, the words "adequate provision" would be more accurate, something which the minority would find acceptable. The minority has said loud and clear for over 2 years now that "A code of practice will not do" and this is precisely what is on the table. It is like a vegetarian being offered chicken - it does not meet our needs and it is an insult to offer it.

In July the Archbishops of York and Canterbury tabled an amendment which may have been adequate to keep many of us within the CofE but the house of Presbyters voted it down. Indeed 6 different forms of provision were voted on and each one rejected. Finally a motion to make provision to establish a hard-ship fund for any Clergy who would experience financial hardship because they would become homeless and have children to support when the legislation became law was also rejected. Listening to the debates online I did come to feel that there was an uncharitable mood even vindictive at times. Rather than any one particular issue I think it is the way in which one party in the GS has come to dominate which is the gravest cause for concern. The Liberals and Liberal Catholics will be on a very sticky wicket when, in 10 years time, it is the Evangelicals who organise themselves and are in a majority on GS.

So, let's not pretend that this putative code of practice is anything other than a fig leaf which allows people to say "it's not true to say there is no provision". The General Synod has sent a clear signal to us faithful Anglicans. Dissent is no longer to be tolerated in this "inclusive" Church. I have seen the pattern before in Sweden and the USA where you can believe anything you like (or not much at all!) and call it Christianity but you cannot question certain innovations. Members of the GS clearly cannot imagine the pain of leaving a Church which I love and have served as a layman for 40 years for if they did, simple human compassion would have prevented them from being so mean spirited.

Posted by: a seeker after truth on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 10:16pm GMT

'Unlike in the USA and Canada the clergy are not paid enough to be able to buy houses and build up savings'

I can't speak for the USA but I can say that I live in one of the few dioceses in Canada where clergy are fortunate enough to be able to provide their own housing and are paid (somewhat) appropriately (I say 'somewhat' because the cost of housing has gone up 250% in my city in the last ten years, and my salary has certainly not kept up!) .

One of the many differences between the C of E and Canada is that there is far more variety of practice between dioceses here in Canada. But the majority of Canadian priests still live in church-owned rectories and are paid lower stipends accordingly. Nor do we get the 'lump sum' which I understand is currently paid to C of E clergy on retirement.

So the blanket statement made by 'seeker of truth' above is incorrect.

Posted by: Tim Chesterton on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 11:33pm GMT

"I wonder in what way some have you have worked with or intend to work with the largest Christian denomination in the World - the very rock from which we were all hewn."

{roll eyes}

seeker, you might find more truth if you weren't so busy engaging in spin.

(And "largest Christian denomination"? The Gospel is not about the World's Value of *market-share*!)

Generally speaking, I agree w/ Charlotte here. The now-Ordinary crowd (and they WILL find themselves pretty "ordinary" in Rome, after all the extraordinary attention they received while remaining barely-nominally Anglican!) may, FINALLY, begin to live lives of integrity, proving (once again) one cannot serve two masters. Provided there's no ugly Yank-style property theft, may they go w/ God's blessings...

Posted by: JCF on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 11:36pm GMT

"a seeker after truth" wrote: "The hatred and anti-Roman Catholic sentiment expressed by Anglicans on many of these blogs is deeply depressing particularly as the week of prayer for Christian Unity gets under-way."

I am afraid that "seeker" is confusing the disdain of many of us for the self-perpetuating Roman Catholic hierarchy, with the Roman Catholic Church itself.

As one who crossed the Tiber -- in the opposite direction -- thirty-four years ago, after eighteen years of well-indoctrinated Roman Catholic education, I have nothing but love and admiration for the good sisters, brothers, and priests -- as well as many lay persons -- who pursue the teachings of Jesus largely despite, rather than because of, the RC hierarchy.

I left Rome because it did not inspire me (quite the opposite, in fact), and I accidentally found that the Episcopal Church brought me closer to God, and moved me to become more, rather than less, involved. Some of the changes which have taken place in TEC did not come easily to me (e.g., women's ordination, religious acceptance of faithful persons who happened to be homosexual), but prayerful consideration of such changes convinced me that this is exactly what Jesus would have done, were he visibly walking with us two thousand years later.

Rome will get it some day, but self-perpetuation and arrogance is the albatross which will make that happen long after I am dead.

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 11:41pm GMT

Seeker said "I am often puzzled by the type of comment from Adam Armstrong above which is both crude and offensive". I did say that I would be irreverent. Crude and offensive doesn't make me wrong. I said nothing different than others here have said or has been said by various commentators. The issues of gender and sexuality are in the forefront of the reasons why there is an Ordinariate abd youcan't sweep them under the rug. They were the biggest elephant in the room at Westminster Cathedral.

Posted by: Adam Armstrong on Monday, 17 January 2011 at 12:41am GMT

""For doctrinal reasons the Church does not, in any circumstances, allow the ordination of married men as Bishops." St Peter's mother-in-law? I Corinthians 9.5?"

Clearly, the mention of St Peter's mother-in-law does not prove that he was married. Maybe he was in a Civil Partnership. :-)

Ducking and running....

Posted by: Nom de Plume on Monday, 17 January 2011 at 4:13am GMT

"Unlike in the USA and Canada the clergy are not paid enough to be able to buy houses and build up savings"

As a cleric in Canada, let me say that the decision to be ordained has to date cost me, conservatively, $2,000,000. By the time I retire it will likely be closer to $5,000,000. I have no house of my own and live in substandard housing which has been in dire need of repair for the last 20 years or more. So don't whinge about how much Canadian clergy are paid.

Posted by: Nom de Plume on Monday, 17 January 2011 at 4:18am GMT

"For doctrinal reasons the Church does not, in any circumstances, allow the ordination of married men as Bishops."

Really? I thought it was simply a matter of discipline. What on earth are the doctrinal reasons?

Posted by: Bill Dilworth on Monday, 17 January 2011 at 4:51am GMT

"Sounds to me like he doesn't agree with the RC position on Anglican Orders."

You'll notice he was careful to say "ordained ministry," not "priesthood."

Posted by: Bill Dilworth on Monday, 17 January 2011 at 4:59am GMT

' As I understand the Ordinariate's rules, he is ineligible for ordination to the episcopate as a married man."

Posted by: Nom de Plume on Sunday, 16 January 2011 at 4:59am GMT

Don't be too sure, nom de plume! In the Roman Catholic Church, the Magisterium makes the rules. They don't have to consult with anyone but the Pope - certainly not any of the lower orders - to change any rule they like. Look at what has just happened. An Anglican married Bishop has been accepted into the Fold, ordained deacon and priest - all within a space of weeks.

If the Pope really wanted to, he could even allow The new Ordinary of the new Ordinariate to be ordained an 'honorary' Bishop, so that he could become a more ordinary 'Ordinary'. As long as he is male and has no gay mannerisms.

Nothing is impossible to G.. (sorry, The Pope).

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Monday, 17 January 2011 at 11:02am GMT

I can appreciate that those priests who leave the Church of England or the Church in Wales for the Ordinariate will have to face some difficult and heart-searching questions about their financial position. They are not, however, leaving in abject poverty. The minimum stipend for a vicar in the CofE was £22,470 (in 2010). In the CinW it was £20,974, plus fees for occasional offices (unlike the CofE). The Website "payscale" http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Country=United_Kingdom/Salary lists the average UK salariers for the following occupations:Office Administartor £16,137, Retail Store Manager £21,473, Personal Assistant £23,919. Clergy are not well paid, but many people earn less and have to provide their own accomodation. Those who leave the Anglican mimnistry for the Ordinariate will face financial challenges, but please lets not blow them out of proportion.

Posted by: Hugh James on Monday, 17 January 2011 at 12:03pm GMT

I'm with Charlotte--when compared to the antics of the so-called "orthodox" here in the U.S., the conduct of the ordinariate crew is the very picture of integrity.

I wish them all the best.

Posted by: JPM on Monday, 17 January 2011 at 8:41pm GMT

""a seeker after truth" wrote: "The hatred and anti-Roman Catholic sentiment expressed by Anglicans on many of these blogs is deeply depressing particularly as the week of prayer for Christian Unity gets under-way."

"I am afraid that "seeker" is confusing the disdain of many of us for the self-perpetuating Roman Catholic hierarchy, with the Roman Catholic Church itself."

Yes, I agree -- I have noticed no anti-RC sentiment on this website, and only mild versions of the anti-Vatican anger that many Roman Catholics would express far more strongly. Anglicans are remarkably gentle, polite, tolerant and fair-minded people on the whole.

Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 at 8:47am GMT

It is unimportant. England is all a-dither about the Ordinariate, which will be forgotten in a year.

The only reason they have press is *your* concern about a collection of gay-hating, over-privileged old men and self-loathing women have headed for Rome. This has been going on for ever, it's just got the Old Bavarian's clammy hand on it's head. Frankly, it's doubtful these people will be any shining beacon, as they don't even have the poor excuse of "Just following orders;" once an agitator, always an agitator.

Let it die.

Posted by: MarkBrunson on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 at 9:10am GMT

Hugh , the definitive source of such statistics in the UK is the Office for National statistics. From their report the median salary is £499 per week i.e. approx £26k
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

I'm not sure that the jobs you used for comparison would require a degree and several years of training and they would get overtime payments for being called out in the night to visit the dying and they are not required to live over the shop and deal with out of hours business on a regular basis. This is the life of the clergy, they knew it when they joined and so don't complain but I think that us laity should at least be realistic about their financial position.

I was not claiming that the Anglicans are in abject poverty but they are certainly not paid anything like the amount that could earn in similar professions such as teaching where a Head of Religious Studies Department could earn around £45k. My own Parish Priest also gives 10% of his stipend to the Church.

For comparison, RC Preists get, I believe around £8k or £9k per year in London where the cost of living is very high.

Posted by: a seeker after truth on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 at 1:38pm GMT

" I wonder in what way some have you have worked with or intend to work with the largest Christian denomination in the World - the very rock from which we were all hewn." - 'seeker after truth' -

I've only just noticed this silly comment from a reputed 'seeker after truth'. If that was really the case, you could not have repeated this myth about the Roman Catholic Church being 'the very rock from which vwe were all hewn. Surely you have come to realise that no one but Jesus Christ himself is 'Head of The Church', as that doughty Apostle Saint Paul reminds us in the Scriptures.

Don't let your affiliation to the Roman Magisterium fool you into thinking that 'All authority in heaven and on earth' rests with the Pope. Only Jesus deserves the fealty that goes with that particular status.

"Seek and you will find" is not a bad maxim. But you have to get off your chuff and do the work necessary to find what really is God's ongoing revelation to and in the world.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Thursday, 20 January 2011 at 1:39am 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.