So +Michael Scott-Joynt has added his comments in an article in this weeks Church of England Newspaper. It is, of course, a free country and, thankfully, he can say what he likes (though I gather +Rowan has complained about the liberal 'chattering classes').
His statement, following +Tom Wright of Durham, has made me realise that, because of the way they come to their authority as bishops, they can speak for no one but themselves. We didn't choose them - the People of God did not elect them - so who do they represent? The power they have is that of position and influence: I wish I might say their charism, but that would require their appointment to be by a process of discernment by the Church. Whatever +Michael and +Tom say about the Episcopal Church, at least their bishops speak with the authority of the People of God who elected them.
I have come to sense that the Church of England is still a feudal fiefdom of the bishops. I wonder when +Michael listened to the voice of gay and lesbian Christians? My experience of him is that he has never truly 'listened' for his mind has been made up on the subject for many, many years. No theological arguments (or imaginative insights) can touch him, I regret. His voice, as always, only speaks for what he regards as 'orthodox Christianity'.
Who was it said, "There's none so blind as those who will not see" ...
Showing posts with label Episcopal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Episcopal. Show all posts
Friday, February 09, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Bishop of Durham seems to have exploded, and what a mess! Here's what he said today about the matter of gay adoptions, equality and the church:
“This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that new Labour — which has got every second thing wrong and is back-tracking on extended drinking hours, is in a mess over this cash-for-peerages business, cannot keep all its prisons under control — the idea that new Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years; I am sorry, this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.”
Ummmmm ... excuse me but our elected, democratic Government (and, yes, it may have been elected by less than 50% of the population, but that's how democracy works in our society) has proposed that those dealing with the adoption of children must accept a particular piece of legislation. If this is passed by Parliament (not the State, which is another concept) then it will become Law. Isn't that how we do things in our country?
The Law will not affect the 'views and beliefs' of the church - except to say that discrimination is against the Law. Clearly Bp. Wright thinks the church should be allowed to discriminate. Oh dear. It saddens me that someone like him should have spoken before thinking. It seems perfectly right to me that where religion seeks to play a part in society it must, surely, acknowledge, as part of that society, the Law.
If the church (which one?) were granted an exemption from Equality legislation (and I understand this to be the point) then any religious group could claim exemption for some aspect of it's teaching (not belief) and continue to excercise discrimination.
And then we'd really be up s*** creek.
On another note, I listened to 'Today' and noticed a subtle (?) change in the Cardinal's stance when he said to the interviewer that the real reason why the RC Church objected to the proposals was that it believed in the necessity of children being brought up in a fmaily where there is a father and a mother? Or did I dream that is what he said?
“This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that new Labour — which has got every second thing wrong and is back-tracking on extended drinking hours, is in a mess over this cash-for-peerages business, cannot keep all its prisons under control — the idea that new Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years; I am sorry, this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.”
Ummmmm ... excuse me but our elected, democratic Government (and, yes, it may have been elected by less than 50% of the population, but that's how democracy works in our society) has proposed that those dealing with the adoption of children must accept a particular piece of legislation. If this is passed by Parliament (not the State, which is another concept) then it will become Law. Isn't that how we do things in our country?
The Law will not affect the 'views and beliefs' of the church - except to say that discrimination is against the Law. Clearly Bp. Wright thinks the church should be allowed to discriminate. Oh dear. It saddens me that someone like him should have spoken before thinking. It seems perfectly right to me that where religion seeks to play a part in society it must, surely, acknowledge, as part of that society, the Law.
If the church (which one?) were granted an exemption from Equality legislation (and I understand this to be the point) then any religious group could claim exemption for some aspect of it's teaching (not belief) and continue to excercise discrimination.
And then we'd really be up s*** creek.
On another note, I listened to 'Today' and noticed a subtle (?) change in the Cardinal's stance when he said to the interviewer that the real reason why the RC Church objected to the proposals was that it believed in the necessity of children being brought up in a fmaily where there is a father and a mother? Or did I dream that is what he said?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)