Simon Sarmiento's journal

There’s an irony that the press coverage should focus on what the Archbishop is ‘giving up’ - car house, staff etc - on the Sunday when the reading was about a man who on his first meeting Jesus was most concerned about his riches!

It is a wonderful witness to the world and brilliant news for my Diocese of Bradford!

I may be speaking out of turn, and Lord knows I have great respect for David Hope, but might it not also be possible that he is acutely aware of the gathering storms of division between the ‘traditionalists’ and the ‘radicals’ (or whatever else one wants to label the ‘opponents’ of the traditionalists) in the Anglican Family - and could it not also be possible that, being perceived as a traditionalist himself (but by no means a bigoted one, rather a humble and thinking one) - he just doesn’t want to become the reluctant leader of any such uprising? I suspect that this is as much of a retreat as it is an act of humility . . . and who could blame him?

hadge wrote:
…perceived as a traditionalist himself (but by no means a bigoted one, rather a humble and thinking one)

Would that we had more of these “humble and thinking traditionalists.” We’d all be getting along a lot better… But sadly, for every David Hope or David Bane (Bishop of Southern Virginia), we have dozens of examples like David Virtue, Robert Duncan (Bishop of Pittsburgh), or David Roseberry (Rector of Christ Church, Plano, TX).

It might be useful if we knew/could agree what constitutes a “humble and thinking traditionalist”. I don’t know enough about Dr Duncan or Fr Roseberry to comment. David Virtue tends to be rather Americocentric and to see things through the distorting prism of right-wing secular American politics. But I have no idea to what extent these gentlemen are humble, thinking, or traditionalist.

Dr Hope is a thoroughly nice bloke with a great pastoral heart. Where he has come in for criticism from his own side, it has been for being less vigorous than we might have wished in advancing the Catholic cause. (FWIW, I don’t think this criticism is fair; he’s done as much as we could reasonably expect of a man in his position.) In this context, the ascription of humility and thought could be construed as a backhanded compliment from his opponents, seeking to place a barrier between him and more abrasive (but no less humble!) prelates like the Bishop of Fulham.

David H., I’ve chatted with David Roseberry+ and have read and listened to both he and ++Duncan. They are “humble and thinking.” And you are certainly not in much of a position to say otherwise.