Today’s Observer contains a leader and an opinion column both of which respond to the remarks of the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali as quoted last week in the Daily Mail.
First, a reminder of the Daily Mail report by Steve Doughty:
A senior Church of England bishop have warned that Anglican youth clubs, welfare projects and charities may close because of new gay rights laws.
The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, said that the Church of England’s charities would be “affected” by the rules, which will force them to give equal treatment to homosexuals.
He declared: “It will be the poor and disadvantaged who will be the losers….”
…Pakistani-born Dr Nazir-Ali said: “I welcome warmly what the Roman Catholic Bishop of Birmingham has said about the Sexual Orientation Regulations.
“In the proposed regulations there is no clear exemption for religious belief even though it is widely known that several of the faiths in this country will have serious difficulty.”
He added: “Religion affects every area of life and cannot be reduced to just worship.
“These regulations will certainly affect a great deal of charitable work done by the churches and others. It is the poor and disadvantaged who will be the losers.”
Now, today’s Observer. First, Nick Cohen in Let’s not sleepwalk with the Christian soldiers says:
…Last week, full-page adverts launched a histrionic campaign from the church’s evangelical wing against New Labour’s attempts to secure equality for homosexuals. The low point came when the Bishop of Rochester claimed ‘the poor and disadvantaged will be the losers’ if religious charities are forced to treat gays fairly.
Much can change before 25 December, but after the past fortnight, there is a fair chance that the hedonism and family quarrels of the traditional British Christmas will be overshadowed by religion, of all things.
Only the Tory press sympathised with the wild assault on equality under the law for homosexuals, but hardly anyone defended British Airways. Tellingly, only now can you see widespread anger at the failure to call Christmas by its proper name, although Birmingham City Council has been burbling about ‘Winterval’ since 1998.
The ferocity of the Church of England’s internal conflicts could make a Balkan warlord blanch. However, Ekklesia, a think-tank on the church’s left, and Anglican Mainstream, from its evangelical right, agreed on one point. They both told me that committed Christians with a sincere faith were just another minority – somewhere between 5 and 10 per cent of the population. But beyond them there were millions of people who could be glad that Christians were asserting themselves under special circumstances…
and the leader column The government must not buckle over gay rights said:
…It says much about modern Britain that civil partnerships were introduced without a rumpus. The law was not forcing liberal values on a reactionary society, it was catching up with attitudes that had already changed. Prejudice still exists, but there is no doubt that Britain in 2006 is a much better place in which to be gay than it was 10 years ago…
…In the same spirit a law has been drafted that would ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Hotels, for example, would not be able to deny rooms to gay couples. Schools would not be able to deny places to gay pupils. The changes were due to be introduced earlier this year but have been postponed because of lobbying by church groups.
Last week the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham, Vincent Nichols attacked the government for what he called the imposition of its moral agenda on the church. The Anglican Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, warned that church-based charities would be forced to close their doors if the government insisted they let in gay people. ‘It is the poor and disadvantaged who will be the losers,’ he said.
The churches are thus trying to depict the Sexual Orientation Regulations as an assault on their philanthropic work, including faith schools and adoption agencies. That is a tendentious argument. ‘The poor and disadvantaged’ would only lose out if the churches choose to hate homosexuality more than they like good works. Their objection to the new law is not, as they like to see it, self-defence against a meddling government. It is a threat by powerful institutions to withhold their charity out of prejudice.
Churches are free to preach that homosexuality is a sin and their followers are free to believe it in private. But the elected government of Britain does not share that view and has rightly sought to give gay citizens the same public rights as everyone else. Or at least it has done thus far. On this latest measure the cabinet is divided. Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a devout Catholic, is the minister responsible for the new law and is sympathetic to the idea of exempting churches. The Prime Minister is also thought to be amenable to religious petitioning…
To judge for yourself whether or not “there is no clear exemption for religious belief” read the regulations as published for Northern Ireland, from this page (which has links to the full text).
25 CommentsSpeaking on a local radio station in York, the Archbishop of York has dismissed newspaper gossip that he wants to take over as Archbishop of Canterbury.
Archbishop denies Canterbury tale
What is he talking about? See here, and also here.
4 CommentsThe penetrating analysis of the Catholic Herald interview, and its spinoffs in the Telegraph and The Times, that appeared in the Church Times, is now on public view: Press: What Dr Williams didn’t mean by Andrew Brown.
Everyone who has followed the story of women priests knows that every archbishop has to pretend that there is a chance that the decision to ordain women might be reversed. That is the figleaf of “reception”, which allows Forward in Faith and Reform, in their turn, to pretend to be part of the Church of England.
You may think that this is a silly bargain, but it is the one that the Synod and the Church as a whole have signed up to. This is well understood by all the journalists who, despite that, wrote last week’s story as if it were significantly true: Ruth Gledhill, Jonathan Petre, and its originator, Damian Thompson. They all covered the vote in 1992. Ruth, on her blog, and Jonathan, in the course of his story, made it quite clear that they saw no truth in their own headlines.
Much of the Catholic Herald material has rotated off its website. But you can still find the interview itself here (third URL since inception).
Update
And also, there was this article by Damian Thompson which appeared in the Guardian No wonder the Archbishop of Canterbury chose to speak to us. For background on another Catholic Herald columnist go here.
Earlier in the week, there was this Daily Telegraph news story by Andrew Pierce Williams may quit over ‘criticism from Carey’ and this comment piece by Damian Thompson The archbishop’s days are numbered.
This article appeared in the Sunday Telegraph today:
I support Rowan: we are working together by George Carey.
The November Fulcrum newsletter has also appeared this week in the Church of England Newspaper. It is titled
Splitters United or Patient Pressure? by Graham Kings.
The Splitters reference is to Truro Church and The Falls Church. Fulcrum thinks they and anyone else should stay and participate in the making of an Anglican covenant.
1 CommentSeveral reports today of new academic research:
BBC Church ‘in need of women priests’
Reuters Women priests given “dregs” in Church of England
Press Association Women priests ‘could save Church’
Economic & Social Research Council press release Women priests will ‘save church from sinking’
Updated twice Saturday
More on the British Airways affair.
Earlier today, both Giles Fraser and Stephen Bates expressed opinions:
Christians urgently need to offer a better account of the cross than simply that it’s a badge of identity
A cross BA has to bear.
News reports of developments in the story flowed all day:
BBC Bishop condemns BA’s cross policy,
Evening Standard 13 bishops join the chorus against BA’s ban on cross.
This afternoon, the CofE issued Archbishop of Canterbury comments on British Airways.
This was quickly picked up in the media, e.g. Reuters Anglicans review ties to British Airways over cross.
And then, British Airways announced: British Airways to review uniform policy.
Saturday reports
The Times BA responds to backlash by lifting ban on small crosses
Guardian How the archbishop took on the world’s favourite airline – and won
Telegraph BA will review uniform policy after crucifix row (Note to Damian T: please tell your headline writers the difference between a cross and a crucifix)
Update The Daily Mail reported crucial additional information:
18 CommentsArchbishop Peter Akinola, Anglican leader in Nigeria, said: ‘As far as we are concerned the decision to ban the cross by BA has religious undercurrents.
‘The trend in your country is to devalue its religious heritage. If BA says no to the cross, we shall start using another airline. I shall do everything I can to urge Christian leaders to boycott BA.’
The Archbishop of York has issued this press release: ARCHBISHOP DERIDES ”FLAWED REASONING” OF BA CROSS DECISION.
This responds to the decision announced today concerning a British Airways employee, see for example, BBC Woman loses fight to wear cross.
Some other press reports:
Press Association BA criticised in cross row
Associated Press British Airways employee loses appeal to wear cross necklace at work
Reuters BA worker loses appeal over right to wear crucifix
BBC Archbishop attacks BA cross rules
The Times BA worker loses appeal in row over cross
Telegraph Archbishop blasts BA as employee loses cross appeal
Guardian BA woman loses appeal against ban on wearing a cross at work
The official British Airways response is not on the web, but a copy of it that was emailed to me is below the fold.
33 CommentsJudith Maltby writes in Comment is free about the Catholic Herald interview: A tall order.
The BBC radio programme Sunday had coverage of it too. Christina Rees and Lucy Winkett are interviewed. Listen here (Real Audio, about 3.5 minutes). It’s also discussed later in the programme, in connection with the forthcoming visit of Rowan Williams to the Pope, in an interview with Stephen Bates. That item can be heard here (3.5 minutes).
In the Sunday Telegraph June Osborne writes, What we really need are women bishops.
In the Independent Peter Stanford The Sunday Profile: Rowan Williams
3 CommentsPaul Handley talked to Rowan Williams.
Less a Roman holiday, more an Italian job
13 CommentsUpdated Saturday
The Guardian on Friday has both a news report and a leader article concerning this:
Stephen Bates Women clergy rail at ‘misquoted’ Williams
leader: Turbulent priests
UPDATED SECTION
Anyone who was wondering who the Catholic Herald interviewer was can find out a bit more here link now broken, text copied below the fold here. The wording of this piece, as that of the leader column linked below, is quite revealing of the mindset of the Catholic Herald.
The Catholic Herald’s own front page news report, headlined Anglicans could ‘think again’ on women priests, says Williams. The Catholic Herald also has a leader column on the subject: An archbishop with whom we can do business.
The BBC’s Robert Pigott has a further article, A misunderstanding on women priests? and the BBC changed the headline on its news article yet again, this time to ‘No doubts’ over ordaining women (this URL was previously headlined Williams mulls women’s ordination and even earlier had been Archbishop cool on female priests).
The Telegraph has added a copy of the full transcript of the original interview to its website. That URL may prove has already proved more durable than the first URL of the original (changed URL).
The Living Church has a report by George Conger Archbishop Williams: ‘Full Support’ for Women’s Ordination
Meanwhile, the Church Times which has its own major interview with Rowan Williams in today’s paper edition, reports Primate will commend women priests to the Pope.
Ekklesia has also reported, Idea of me questioning women priests is nonsense, says Dr Williams
14 CommentsUPDATED Lambeth Palace has issued a press release Archbishop – newspaper reports ‘wilful misinterpretation’. Both ACNS and the CofE website have also published it.
… “I made it clear in the interview with the Catholic Herald and will continue to do so that I see no theological justification for any revisiting of this question and indicated in the interview three times that I had no wish to reopen it, whatever technical possibilities might theoretically exist.”
“The presentation of this to mean anything else is wilful misinterpretation. My convictions mean that I feel nothing less than full support for the decision the Church of England made in 1992 and appreciation of the priesthood exercised ”
spelling errors corrected
——
The Catholic Herald will publish an interview tomorrow.
UPDATE it is now on that website. Read it in full here.
Meanwhile, the Telegraph has huge coverage:
Jonathan Petre Church could think again over women, says Williams and this page is linked to an audio interview with Telegraph comment writer Damian Thompson who is also the editor in chief of the Catholic Herald (you may need to use Internet Explorer to hear this).
Also, ‘Much bitterness has gone’ and The bishops debate.
And there is a leader column: Praise her, praise her!
The Times: Ruth Gledhill Archbishop admits doubts over ordination of women and more on her blog at Rowan Williams on women priests.
BBC Archbishop cool on female priests
(headline later changed to Williams mulls women’s ordination)
And after the Lambeth Palace press release:
Associated Press Archbishop of Canterbury affirms support for women priests; says interview misinterpreted
Updated
News stories about the Nuffield Council report on Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: ethical issues mentioned earlier are beginning to come in. The Nuffield website has not yet published the report itself but has issued this press release: Independent ethics body proposes week-by-week guidelines on treating premature babies.
The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, whose bishops are meeting jointly right now, have issued a joint comment by about this report: you can read it in full here.
Joint comment by Rt Rev Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark, and Most Rev Peter Smith, Archbishop of Cardiff, on behalf of the Church of England House of Bishops and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales on the publication of the Nuffield Council’s report Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: Ethical issues:
We warmly welcome the clear recommendation from the Nuffield Council today that “the active ending of life of newborn babies should not be allowed, no matter how serious their condition.” This reaffirms the validity of existing law prohibiting euthanasia, and upholds the vital and fundamental moral principle that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is always gravely wrong.
There is a clear distinction between interventions which are deliberately aimed at killing, and decisions to withhold or withdraw medical treatment when it is judged to be futile or unduly burdensome. In our joint submission in 2004 to the Select Committee of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill the Church of England House of Bishops and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales said:
“Doctors do not have an overriding obligation to prolong life by all available means. Treatment for a dying patient should be ‘proportionate’ to the therapeutic effect to be expected, and should not be disproportionately painful, intrusive, risky, or costly, in the circumstances. Treatment may therefore be withheld or withdrawn, though such decisions should be guided by the principle that a pattern of care should never be adopted with the intention, purpose or aim of terminating the life or bringing about the death of a patient. Death, if it ensues, will have resulted from the underlying condition which required medical intervention, not as a direct consequence of the decision to withhold or withdraw treatment. ” (para 18)
In applying this principle we believe that every case should be judged on its merits and like the British Medical Association, we would have concerns about any blanket recommendation regarding the treatment of babies born before 22 weeks. Decisions regarding treatment should always be made on an individual basis having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
We will wish to study the detail of the Nuffield Council’s report but welcome the extremely important recommendation opposing any action aimed at the active ending of life of newborn babies.
British Medical Association has issued this press release.
Some press reports:
Reuters Pre-22-week babies “should not have intensive care”
Guardian Extremely premature babies should be left to die, says report
BBC ‘Do not revive’ earliest babies
Telegraph Ethics experts set out controversial guidelines for doctors and parents
The Times When to let a baby die: experts set the guidelines
As previously mentioned, a joint meeting is being held near Leeds. An official statement has been issued.
Ruth Gledhill wrote an article about something else which mentions this. The BBC also reported it.
Tom Butler talked about this on the radio this morning. In this piece he also said (but do read it all to see the context):
3 CommentsSo the question, “Do Anglicans on the East coast of America have to adopt the same norms and practices of Anglicans in rural Nigeria and vice versa?”, has been around in different forms since the start of the Church, and the best we can hope for is a cobbling together of some common sense solution which recognizes that Christian practice might show up in different ways in different cultures whilst being loyal to its core truths.
The newspaper stories on this were reported earlier.
The response of the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Consultation on Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: ethical issues can be read in full here.
The preamble states:
3 CommentsPlease note that :
- The Church of England’s submission to the Nuffield Inquiry is entirely in keeping with the Church’s policy on treatment at the beginning and end of life (see Euthanasia and Suicide)
- The submission stated that fetuses and newborns should only have treatment withheld or withdrawn if treatment is futile.
- We believe firmly that every life is valued and loved by God equally.
First, there was this article in the Sunday Times Bishop attacks ‘victim’ Muslims. Then there was another article which the Daily Mail didn’t put on their website but which Anglican Mainstream has since published: Nazir-Ali speaks on the moral vacuum in Britain, Prince Charles and Islam.
16 CommentsLast Friday, the Archbishop of York gave a lecture in Newcastle, to the Readers of that diocese. You can read the full text of what he said here.
This event has provoked extensive press coverage. The longest is based on an interview conducted the same day, before the lecture, for the Daily Mail by Sarah Sands. You can read this interview at Archbishop blames ‘chattering classes’ for collapse of Britain’s spiritual life.
You can read a rehash of the same interview in The Times here. Hat tip to Andrew Brown for spotting this.
There was also this in the Sunday Times and this from the Press Association, and this in the Telegraph.
23 CommentsThe Church Times has Battersea vicar causes stir by remarks about Global South by Rachel Harden.
A VICAR of a south-London parish where one of the Church of England’s most senior officials is a Reader explained this week why he asked for the tape-recording system to be turned off at the end of a Sunday service so that he could talk about supporting the Global South.
The Revd Paul Perkin, Vicar of St Mark’s, Battersea Rise, in Southwark diocese, and a member of the General Synod, said that he believed his remarks would be taken out of context if they were recorded and repeated…
The Church of England Newspaper has “We Have Renounced Secret Ways”…But Have We? by Simon Butler.
13 CommentsIn South London recently, a prominent Evangelical minister asked that the microphones and recording equipment in his church be switched off. To a hushed congregation he announced that, with a split in the Anglican Communion imminent, his church would need to decide with who they were going to ‘sit’. This, he said, was to have particular implications for the finances of the church, which may need to be redirected towards the ‘Global South’. He asked his congregation to trust his lead on this matter. Consultation was clearly not on the agenda…
Today’s newspapers are full of religion:
The Observer has a front page story about the Church of England: the headline reads Some sick babies must be allowed to die, says Church, though the content of the story may not justify that use of “must”. The church document on which this story is based has not yetnow been made public by the Church of England. Read it here. Meanwhile, here is the Nuffield Council for Bioethics report launch page.
The Sunday Times has an article by historian David Starkey not unrelated to his TV series which restarts this week, Henry was wrong. Put religion back in its box. Simon Jenkins reviews the book of the TV programme here.
The Sunday Telegraph has two reports by Jonathan Wynne-Jones
Schools are being forced to put tests before morals, archbishop warns
Chruches [sic] to unite at historic summit against rise in anti-religious public feeling
PRESS RELEASE – for immediate release
Roman Catholic and Anglican Solidarity on Women’s Ordination
The Roman Catholic group CWO (Catholic Women’s Ordination) and the Anglican group WATCH (Women and the Church) have sent a joint letter to all the Bishops of both Churches giving support to those in the Church of England for their recent vote in favour of women Bishops and calling for the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales to look urgently at the growing desire for women priests in the Roman Catholic Church.
The letter has been sent before the joint meeting of Anglican and Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, to be held at Hinsley Hall, Leeds on 14th –15th November 2006.
The letter says:
“We say to the Anglican Bishops: please do not be afraid of raising the subject of ordaining women with your Catholic colleagues. It falls to the RC Bishops, when they gather in Synod, to consider whether these major issues in the Magisterium of the Church need to be looked at afresh. There are clearly many Catholic Bishops in England and Wales who personally believe that women should be ordained: we hope that in the privacy of your meeting that you will be able to discuss this, and perhaps help the Catholic bishops to consider ways of raising this formally in the structures of their Church. The XII Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops is to take place in Rome in October 2008: such a gathering might well provide an opportunity for a discussion of women’s ordination. The RC Bishops of England and Wales, from their experience of working alongside Anglicans, will surely have much to say on the contribution that can be made by women priests.
“To the Catholic Bishops we say: please do not feel this is a one-way dialogue. We believe you also have much to share with your Anglican brothers on the same issue. 14 years ago the C of E voted wholeheartedly for the ordination of women, by a two-thirds majority in all three houses of General Synod. This past July, Synod overwhelmingly agreed with the majority of the Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate was ‘consonant with the faith of the Church’. As Catholics we hope you will feel able to share with your Anglican colleagues that, as this is the step they are taking, they must appoint women as bishops on the same basis as men are appointed as bishops. To do otherwise would be to alter seriously the nature and understanding of episcopé. You will no doubt wish to point out that, in any future reconciliation between Rome and Canterbury, all priests and bishops will need to be universally recognised.
7 Comments