Comments: opinion roundup

Another somewhat bizarre interpretation of reality.

Does Carey think that things would have been any different had he remained as archbishop? Of course they wouldn't. Those who he disagrees with would have been every bit as willing to continue to work for change - of course, he could have tried to simply dismiss them, but in doing so he would have split the CofE itself.

Similarly, if he had taken the line on civil partnerships he wished to, then he would have ended up breaking the law. Have you noticed how all the bluster about vicars who have had civil partnership ceremonies has come to nothing? Thats because the church can do nothing about it. The law simply doesn't allow the homophobia of people like Carey to dominate.

And its that he doesn't like.

Posted by Merseymike at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 12:33am BST

"They have been saying that the office of bishop stands not just for unity within a diocese, but above all for unity between dioceses and provinces, as a focus and sign of the koinonia or communio which is at the heart of the Church."

I might turn this editorial comment from "The Tablet" around: what about the "koinonia or communio" which OUGHT exist between ***ALL*** the Imago Dei? And how can such koinonia exist, when some of the Imago Dei---in this case, those made female or gay---are excluded for being the way God made them?

We're not made to trade one kind of exclusion, one kind of brokenness, for another: we are to be *perfect*, as God is perfect.

I am more convinced than ever, that the RCC and the AC WILL someday be restored to full communion . . . and on that glorious day, the lesbian Archbishop of Canterbury and the lesbian Bishop of Rome, will exchange the Kiss of Peace! :-D

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 2:31am BST

Carey has not done any better than Williams in his time as the AB of Cante.

If he woould only have taken the bull(ECUSA) by the horns, it may have been better. At least a stand would have been made earlier and the leaven purged and stood for the Truth of the scriptures.Rather, it was all about affirmations, dclarations....All rather short of church discipline that should have been meted out.

As of now, its easier to put blame to the successor(not that Williams is any better)

Is divisons bad? Divisions for the Truth is actually a good thing.....

Posted by prophetjck at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 3:37am BST

Carey is on record as saying that when people are retired, they should no longer have a voice in the councils of the Church. I wonder at what point he proposes to take his own advice?

Posted by Alan Marsh at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 10:09am BST

Sadly, it appears that Lord Carey has somewhat fallen into the trap that often beguiles us all when we wish to have our cake and eat it, too.

As a paragon of near past leadership, he wishes full historical credit for suppressing diversity and dissent and inquiry among Anglicans - mostly by virtue of his persistent abilities to ignore and strategize (mostly for conservagive Anglican ends); while at the same time he wishes to avoid taking any credit for how his own manipulations and strategies contributed to the appaling lack of church spaces in which people of differing views can still recognize one another - as people, and as believers, and as Anglicans. One can readily credit Lord Carey for his refined abilities to turn a deaf ear to anybody with whom he disagrees, i.e., liberal Anglicans; and at the same time give him full credit for helping set the stage for our current polarization.

One may even question him about how much his contributions to polarization were a needed precedent for the false witness about liberal-progressive believers that is now something of a Rule, worldwide. False witness? Yes, always to the effect that such believers simply have no conscience, no ethics, no theologies that matter. False witness? Yes, insofar as we are led by his remarks to sadly believe that the poor of the world will simply have to refuse bread, in their universal deep disgust that it might have been touched by LGBTQ hands at some point in its travels. Has Lord Carey ever been poor and starving to death? One wonders. My memories of those states remind me that bread was a blessed gift from God then, even if it might have been cooked by a gay chef in a five star restaurant that trucked its daily leftovers to the soup kitchen. Even more than missing the desperation of being poor and starving, Lord Carey encourages us to think definitively that the poor and starving cannot have the generosity of heart that lets them see their common human and spiritual cause with all of humanity, regardless of our differences. Yet this heart and spirit does exist often among the poor, and we do them a disservice to suggest otherwise.

Lord Carey is welcome to his best good conscience, but surely we might ask that he express his best thinking without asking us all to believe false and silly things - about liberal-progressive Anglicans neighbors, and/or about the poor of the planet, too.

Alas. Lord have mercy.

Posted by drdanfee at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 3:08pm BST

How truly sad a figure is Lord Carey.

With his every word he demonstrates the relative shallowness of his evangelical grasp of these thorny theological issues, his willingness to place global politics ahead of all justice and reasonable morality, and, perhaps most un-Anglican of all, the fact that his post-retirement interference with Canterbury is simply and inexcusably un-gentlemanly.

John-Julian, OJN

Posted by John-Julian at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 6:47pm BST

I think all the posters so far have not read George Carey's rebuttal of the interpretation the Telegraph put on his words. In fact a plain reading of his words seemed to me at the time to not be saying what they said it was saying.

For instance "When I left office at the end of 2002 I felt the Anglican Communion was in good heart" does not mean "It's all my successor's fault"!

Posted by Dave at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 7:48pm BST

The simplest thing for Carey to do, given that he has a propensity for being misinterpreted (not surprising given some of his statements) is to retire from the fray. Take a vow of silence. Go and do some practical work in a hostel for the homeless, or a soup kitchen. Emulate Lord Profumo, and all will think well of him, rather than waiting for the next banana skin to appear under his feet - placed there by George on a previous occasion.

Posted by Alan Marsh at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 10:42pm BST

"The simplest thing for Carey to do, given that he has a propensity for being misinterpreted (not surprising given some of his statements) is to retire from the fray. Take a vow of silence. Go and do some practical work in a hostel for the homeless, or a soup kitchen."

Alan, it gives me great pleasure to say: I could not agree w/ you more. ;-)

[I might add: "or work w/ homeless LGBT youth, pitched out in the street by their families, for being the way God made them"]

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Tuesday, 13 June 2006 at 1:18am BST

I have a sense being Archbishop kinda went to George's head--could be wrong. Be so lovley if he could bear to drop the lord, and go back to plain ole George, a minister of the gospel. But also enjoy retirement with Eileen. He msut be ready for some rest, surely ?

I think being is also worthwhile and a sign of something valuable for us all.

Yet, would I have the courage to let go, myself ?
No sure...

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Tuesday, 13 June 2006 at 11:19am BST

Oh, but we have read it, Dave. Its just that we don't believe it, knowing well Carey,his style, way of working and agenda.

Posted by Merseymike at Tuesday, 13 June 2006 at 12:31pm BST

Where does naivete end and goodness begin? Artlessness and guilelessness are synonyms for them both (though note Jesus on serpents and doves).
Both Archbishops Carey and Williams are more concerned for what they must say than for how they will be heard/misheard. This shows a commendable lack of calculating spirit, tactical spirit, political spirit. This kind of open goodness made them suitable for the job in the first place. Thank goodness neither is a politician, and neither minds in the least whether or not they 'put their foot in it'. That is because their minds are not on appearances nor on style, but on substance.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Tuesday, 13 June 2006 at 1:13pm 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.