Comments: Affirming Catholicism statement on Women Bishops

Once again showing that 'Affirming' trumps 'Catholicism.'

Posted by Douglas Lewis at Tuesday, 6 July 2010 at 3:29pm BST

...only if your definition of "Catholicism" is, by definition, UNaffirmitive Douglas L.

Seriously, au contraire, I see Affirming Catholicism as DEFENDING the Catholic conception of a *bishop* (not the seriously maimed version of same the Archbishops' amendments propose---I mean, propose IF said bishop lacks the ALL-important Y chromosome, that is).

Posted by JCF at Tuesday, 6 July 2010 at 5:59pm BST

"Affirming Liberals" is the more appropriate title for these people whose Catholic credentials are more than a little questionable. From where do they derive their "Catholicity"? I'd be grateful for an explanation for this. They've simply hijacked the word, reducing its meaning to little more than bells, smells and ritual!

Posted by Benedict at Tuesday, 6 July 2010 at 6:51pm BST

Benedict: "They've simply hijacked the word..."

Well, from my point of view the same could be said of many people at the moment: unintelligent socially maladjusted biblical literalists appear to have hijacked the word "Anglican" just at the moment, to such an extent as to make anyone else feel rather ashamed of the name; some straight men seem to have hijacked the word "Church," which has always contained a high proportion of gay people; and a small group of fearful men seem to have hijacked the word "Catholic" such that to them it only denominates people who disagree with women's ordination.

Who on earth, knowing the history and character of the Church of England, would be surprised to find it a home for Radio 4 listeners, liberal bookish types with a love of decency and Catholic order but a healthy disdain for harsh and unrealistic dogma regarding gender and sexuality? Why would this discovery be a sudden disappointment now, as it's how the C of E has been for centuries?

Posted by Fr Mark at Tuesday, 6 July 2010 at 9:47pm BST

I wonder if conservative "christians" are aware that their ONLY witness to the world is bitter, reactionary, joyless, grasping, devouring, hate-filled, empty, and completely divorced from anything that might be called "life" - not just "real life" but "life" as a thing worth being lived. Mouthing words like "love" and "discipline" and "faith" which they've completely bleached of all meaning. The hollow men, and heart-breaking because they've traded God for a mess of pottage - don't get me wrong, lentils are great, they just aren't worth your soul and leave you gassy.

Their god is one the world would've been better without and which every individual would've been more fortunate to have been left unmade by. A loveless, joyless, self-centered god, with nothing to offer. Eternal life? With *that*! Why? Hell is eternal torment? So is eternity with a god that has nothing even humans could recognize as love or compassion. That's the evangelical or "conservative" witness - not really conservative, btw, as it conserves nothing of value or note, just reactionary.

Even if the "liberal" witness is merely one of novelty and the cause of the day, it's still a better, more hopeful witness than the conservative one.

Christianity has failed. Utterly failed God, man and the world, becoming another toy to fight over.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 4:53am BST

". . . small group of fearful men seem to have hijacked the word "Catholic" such that to them it only denominates people who disagree with women's ordination . . ."

As "catholic" means "universal," isn't catholicism more, rather than less, likely to include diversity? Or, are "Catholics" (AKA: christian power-grabbers) going to tell us how war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength - again?

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 6:32am BST

Until the Oxford Movement most members of the Church of England saw the catholicity of the church as adherence to the catholic creeds and the acceptance of episcopal government ,together with the rights of a national church to order its own affairs( as set out in the latter part of the 39 Articles). I dont think Affirming Catholicism repudiates that...whereas an understanding of catholicity which looks to the Pope for authority ( as do Anglican Papalists) most certainly does..and more curiously cuts itself off from at least four centuries of its own Churches history.

Posted by Perry Butler at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 8:45am 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.