Anglicanism is tearing itself apart, but the Roman Church is not. Why not?

[tim]

However it is pretty outrageous that the Church of England can be listed as exempt from such important legislation which is intended to shape Britain into a more equal and fair society.

Where do we expect that the rest of us want to become more fair and equitable but the church can remain not so!

Shaping Britain into a fairer and more equitable society. That in itself is a pretty authoritarian ambition. Whilst I accept the illogicality and sillyness of the idea of God and the strange behaviour of the various groups who hold such bliefs. I am also troubled by those who think that it is worth, or even possible to force the holders of such beliefs to conform to some of their own social norms.

You sound rather like a "NewLabour" nanny to me.

 

[weltweit]

... You sound rather like a "NewLabour" nanny to me.

I have no beef with men only gentelmens clubs and think they should be allowed to exist.

It would also be silliness in the extreme to force the Womens Institute to accept and indeed seek out male members.

But that said I am not anti the anti discrimination laws which as mentioned seek to make the place more fair and equitable.

Can it ever be right that a man doing the same job as a woman is paid significantly more than the woman (or vice versa)?

We are often told about the glass ceiling in industry and commerce and now we see that the Church of England has its glass ceiling set at just below bishop level and what is more it is enshrined in an opt out from the legislation that all other organisations must abide by.

Outrageous!

 

[tim]

I have no beef with men only gentelmens clubs and think they should be allowed to exist.

It would also be silliness in the extreme to force the Womens Institute to accept and indeed seek out male members.

But that said I am not anti the anti discrimination laws which as mentioned seek to make the place more fair and equitable.

Can it ever be right that a man doing the same job as a woman is paid significantly more than the woman (or vice versa)?

We are often told about the glass ceiling in industry and commerce and now we see that the Church of England has its glass ceiling set at just below bishop level and what is more it is enshrined in an opt out from the legislation that all other organisations must abide by.

Outrageous!

Yes, but the ones that object do so because they know that God is telling them itis wrong. The same goes for the Catholics and Orthodox in regard to priesthood in general. They're not going take much notice of you or the state tellng them not to be so silly and threatening them with a little smack. Quite a few of them would, in fact, welcome the opportunity of a little martyrdom lite.

 

[weltweit]

Yes, but the ones that object do so because they know that God is telling them itis wrong. The same goes for the Catholics and Orthodox in regard to priesthood in general. They're not going take much notice of you or the state tellng them not to be so silly and threatening them with a little smack. Quite a few of them would, in fact, welcome the opportunity of a little martyrdom lite.

But the church often sets itself up as a "moral guardians" and has a place in government (outdated perhaps but still there).

If it is morally right that there should be equality between the sexes in all walks of life then it cannot suddenly be morally wrong within the church.

Why can there be special circumstances?

It is either morally right or it is not!

 

[weltweit]

I have not read every passage of the bible by any means but I have not come across any section that said only a man can be a bishop!

 

[tim]

But the church often sets itself up as a "moral guardians" and has a place in government (outdated perhaps but still there).

If it is morally right that there should be equality between the sexes in all walks of life then it cannot suddenly be morally wrong within the church.

Why can there be special circumstances?

It is either morally right or it is not!

Nonsense! Morality is relative and in reality a personal issue. What is considered morally right by some groups and members of society may be considered morally wrong by others. Your argument reflects the conflict between your moral values and those of some followers of some religions.

Out of interest, on what basis do you make your moral judgements? And why do you think they should bind the behaviour of others?

 

[scifisam]

What is there in Anglicanism which is causing strife, then apart from the ordination of women priests and homosexuals? If they're not causing the schisms, then what is?

Can't find what he said recently anywhere, but I found this from longer ago....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7100295.stm

Wow, that's a great article. I never would have expected it of him. A world religious leader from a conservative region who is standing up against homophobia - you'd think it would be bigger news.

Well a protest in that he couldn't get rid of his wife...plus he got all that wealth from the Monasteries....more whoring and thieving by a king than protesting if you ask me...

But he wouldn't have garnered support from the other rich and ordinary people if there hadn't been extra reasons to want to break away from Rome, notably taxes.

 

[weltweit]

re: relative morality: I do think there can be some "absolute" morality.

- thou shalt not kill

is a pretty simple argument or moral position to which a lot of people hold and it is enshrined into our law with murder legislation.

Of course when you get the lawyers and such like at it clauses get added like

- Applies only to humans
- thou can kill in the case of legal warfare when the government of the day has decided that a war is legal..

At the most basic level our collective morality as a nation has to be formed around what our elected government decides is law. Government has taken over from the church the right to establish what is moral for the people of Britain and what is not. The church may not like this but it is fact in Britain today.

Indeed, can something that is legal be imoral? can something that is illegal also be moral?

I make my own moral judgements based on my own sense of right and wrong but I have to accept that the judgements of the elected government of the country will decide what is actually right and wrong in the country at large. And yes, what they decide we all have to live by.

 

[tim]

What is there in Anglicanism which is causing strife, then apart from the ordination of women priests and homosexuals? If they're not causing the schisms, then what is?



Wow, that's a great article. I never would have expected it of him. A world religious leader from a conservative region who is standing up against homophobia - you'd think it would be bigger news.



But he wouldn't have garnered support from the other rich and ordinary people if there hadn't been extra reasons to want to break away from Rome, notably taxes.

The North South Aglican thing is however a bit simplistic, the Anglican Church has always been on the Liberal/progressive wing of the Communion. The USA is also of course in general relgious terms conservative but the Anglicans/Episcopalians have aso tended to be on the Liberal edge.

 

[geoff64]

i think it has something to do with Catholics believing in god and CofE liberal elites failing to convince their congregations that they do. (There are too many atheists in the upper hierarchy of the CofE!)

Belief - or at least the public perception of the conviction of belief -is pretty key when it comes to holding an institution like the church together.

The CofE is a political construct, and a modern one (I heard a CofE bishop say the other day that "the Church is 2000 years old - it's pretty resiliant"; but the Cof E ain't that old, of course.

You could argue that St Peter's fashioning of the Church was political, but it was a v long time ago.

Noone in the CofE, afaik, thinks that the Archbishop of Canterbury is god's representative on earth. The elites within the CofE have a major credibility gap to cross before they even start.

If you're into belief/religion why would you hold with a liberal, effectively secular version, when all the old or fundamentalist stuff is doing very nicely.
A lot of people born into Anglicanism must be wondering whether to convert to Catholicism or to become born again. Don't people want the old certainties from their Church - not something that blows with the wind of social change? Orthodox religious institutions are inherently conservative. It seems that the CofE - in its response to falling congregations - has decided to modernise or die; but in reality if they modernise they will die.

Personally, I don't really give a f***

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Wow, that's a great article. I never would have expected it of him. A world religious leader from a conservative region who is standing up against homophobia - you'd think it would be bigger news.

It's precisely the kind of thing I expect from Desmond Tutu, he has a long history of saying fantastic things like that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In the last few weeks there seem to be news articles or commentary on the Anglican strife in almost every newspaper or magazine I open.

We all know that the Church of England is tearing itself apart and that the Anglican Communion internationally is tearing itself apart. The two hottest issues that divide Anglicans are homosexuality and the proper role of women. Can they be priests? Can they be bishops?

These disagreements in turn rest on rather different views of the authority of scripture and the historic teachings of Christianity.

However, it seems that the Papists are not tearing themselves apart at the moment. Why is that?

I do NOT believe it is because the Roman Church lacks disagreements or that it lacks disagreements on the issues that are tearing Anglicanism apart.

It may be that the permissibility or otherwise of women priests is less of a hot topic among RCs just now, but they certainly disagree among themselves on the question of priestly celibacy and on the question of homosexuality.

One factor that has helped to keep the question of homosexuality on the boil in Anglicanism is that there are apparently quite a lot of gay clergy. There are also a lot of gay clergy in the RC Church and there are Catholics willing to dissent from the Church's teachings on the subject.

Indeed, IME, there is, to put it mildly, no shortage of Catholics who openly dissent from the Church on many questions - and especially on contraception, priestly celibacy and homosexuality.

So why are the Papes not going through the same strife?


My little theory is as follows.

(a) Strife of the sort we are watching in Anglicanism does not come about just because of dissent among the faithful (or not so faithful), but only when the clergy and especially the bishops are in open conflict with each other.

(b) The hierarchy of the Roman Church has managed its clergy more successfully, to avoid open strife breaking out. It has done so by a combination of (i) better Church discipline (this has broken down to a large extent in the CofE) and (ii) turning a blind eye and ear to personal dissent and to co-habiting priests etc.

(c) The relative peace in the Roman Church will not last. At the moment there is a conservative Bishop of Rome. There will not be conservatives in that post for ever. Perhaps strife will break out when a reformer takes charge and tries to bring the teachings and rules of the Church into line with some of the more liberal ideas of many of the world's RCs.

I think it's because the way Anglicanism has developed, it allows, encourages even, navel gazing, dissent, etc.

The Catholic Church is still The Corporation. They've been crushing dissent for two thousand years, and they're very good at it.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I agree with that take Johnny,

I have to say I disagree with scifisam's view that the Anglicans are a conservative religion. They're one of the most liberal. Sure, there are very conservative branches, but I suspect that's a view from someone who hasn't actually engaged with any churches for a long time and has a very pre-conceived notion of what many religions are actually like. I find the thing that consistently shocks many urbanites I've met is the discovery that I'm a church-goer...
"But you can't be! You're so normal and agree with many of things that I think!"

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I agree with that take Johnny,

I have to say I disagree with scifisam's view that the Anglicans are a conservative religion. They're one of the most liberal. Sure, there are very conservative branches, but I suspect that's a view from someone who hasn't actually engaged with any churches for a long time and has a very pre-conceived notion of what many religions are actually like. I find the thing that consistently shocks many urbanites I've met is the discovery that I'm a church-goer...
"But you can't be! You're so normal and agree with many of things that I think!"

I'd agree that some anglicans are anything but conservative. I think this is part of the problem. They're trying to adjust to the times, which is a good, non conservative way to do things, but what people want from religion, is direction, not change. They want a rule book, and not one with a bunch of lines crossing things out, and pencilling new things in.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I'm not an Anglican, I'm a Roman Catholic, but there are things I have massive problems with re. the Catholic church. I get plenty of 'direction' from the church, but lots of it is wrong. The plight of Latin American women with ectopic pregnancies who die because of blanket bans on abortion, for instance.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm not an Anglican, I'm a Roman Catholic, but there are things I have massive problems with re. the Catholic church. I get plenty of 'direction' from the church, but lots of it is wrong. The plight of Latin American women with ectopic pregnancies who die because of blanket bans on abortion, for instance.

Frankly, it surprises me to hear that you are a follower of Catholicism.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Well, I've been wavering for ages, but I do go to church reasonably often. The older I get, the more ecumenical I become. If I jump ship, it'll be Anglican.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well, I've been wavering for ages, but I do go to church reasonably often. The older I get, the more ecumenical I become. If I jump ship, it'll be Anglican.

Many years ago, before my age of majority, even, I attended the United Church. Maybe you don't have that there. I stopped.

There's an interesting discussion to be had here, but not at 2:30, and too many 9% beers on my part.

It just seems to me that there is so much wrong with the Catholic Church.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I think so too, but on the other other hand there are loads of amazing Catholics I've known with real integrity; lay people, nuns, monks and priests I have known all my life that I will always respect. The problem with Catholicism is that it's almost like being Jewish...it's part of you...it's shaped a lot of my thinking, but on the other hand, the things that I'm passionate about exist in the Anglican church too.....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think so too, but on the other other hand there are loads of amazing Catholics I've known with real integrity; lay people, nuns, monks and priests I have known all my life that I will always respect. ..

No doubt, but does their amazing-ness spring from their catholicism, or from who they are as people? With people like that, I suspect that they would be amazing, with or without the church.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

They would all be amazing people anyway I suspect, but they are people to whom their Catholicism is central to who they are too.....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What I'm saying, is that I think goodness in people can and does arise separately from any religious belief.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Oh, absolutely, I don't disagree with that at all, but also there are people to whom religious beliefs are absolutely central and defining to them.

 

[scifisam]

I agree with that take Johnny,

I have to say I disagree with scifisam's view that the Anglicans are a conservative religion. They're one of the most liberal. Sure, there are very conservative branches, but I suspect that's a view from someone who hasn't actually engaged with any churches for a long time and has a very pre-conceived notion of what many religions are actually like. I find the thing that consistently shocks many urbanites I've met is the discovery that I'm a church-goer...
"But you can't be! You're so normal and agree with many of things that I think!"

I said he was from a conservative region, not religion.

ETA: I do agree that Anglicanism is one of the leasr conservative religions out there.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I wonder if this has anything to do with it.

Church and Scaife.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oh, absolutely, I don't disagree with that at all, but also there are people to whom religious beliefs are absolutely central and defining to them.

I've met some stellar people who hold religious beliefs to be stellar and defining. I met one a few weeks ago, whose goodness makes me feel a bit incomplete.

I've also met some absolutely stellar Ukranians, what with there being a lot of them in Canada. But that doesn't make me wish I was Ukranian. I'm happy with what I am.

Also, to be a Catholic, or anything, I'd have to believe in God, which is a stretch that I just can't make.

 

[JHE]

Also, to be a Catholic, or anything, I'd have to believe in God, which is a stretch that I just can't make.

In the more sophisticated parts of the Church of England, belief in God is optional.

Don Cupitt and the Sea of Faith people are non-realist Christians - they do not believe God is an objective reality. They recognise religion as a human creation, rather than humanity as a divine creation.

No wonder the True Believers within Anglicanism get fed up with some of their co-religionists!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In the more sophisticated parts of the Church of England, belief in God is optional.

Well then why bother? Why not just sell off the expensive real estate, help pay the court judgements for all those indians who got raped and enslaved here in Canada, and invest the rest in theme parks and mini golf courses?

 

[JHE]

Well then why bother?

You should ask them. I think you'll find they are strongly attached to their non-realist theology.

It always strikes me as a way of admitting that Christianity is false, but managing to carry on pretty much as if it were true.

Even if they wanted to wind up the Church and flog off the assets, which they don't, they'd have to control the Church to do that - and they don't.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What we're talking about, brings up another question for Mrs. M.

You've talked about the good people who hold religion central to their lives.

How about the child fuckers, the enslavers, who also hold their religion central to their lives. The pedophile priests, the organization that hides and protects them, the enslavers and killers of aboriginals.

When you add up the pluses of those good people, against the minuses of the bad, I'm not sure which side of the equation you'd wind up on.