Twenty-three Church of England bishops have been fiercely criticised this week for not attending a crucial House of Lords vote on controversial new gay rights regulations. This is particularly sad as they so often justify their position in the Upper Chamber claiming they represent "Faiths", "the Christian Tradition", or "give a Christian voice", well the Christian voice was lacking. Except for Dr John Setamu.
I am becoming more and more impressed by Sentamu, not only does he actually have something to say but he actually says it and says it well.
I just wish we Catholics had someone of his stature in our heirarchy. I am beginning think we Catholics should petition the Holy See for an African, Asian or South American as the successor to the Cardinal, even then I doubt whether we would have as gifted communicator as Setamu.
Dr Sentamu said the Government was seeking to have ‘consciences surgically removed’ while introducing a ‘new hierarchy of rights’ where people of faith had become a ‘new sub-category’. Quoting William Wilberforce, the Archbishop said: “The time is fast approaching when Christianity will be openly disavowed, in language as in fact it is already supposed to have disappeared from the conduct of men: when to believe will be deemed the indication of a feeble mind and contracted understanding.” He also said, that the Government was "venturing down an unconsidered path through the establishment of a new hierarchy of human rights."
13 comments:
If you had Archbishop Santamu as your own bishop, mon pere, you would soon discover that he would have less than no sympathy for your position apart from homophobia. As for homosexuality, in the biblical, canonical four Gospels, Christ declares no teaching on the issue which is currently exercising fundamentalist Catholic prejudice. But in the newly discovered Gospel of Judas, however, Christ explicitly condemns it, and even proceeds to accuse his own disciples of homosexual acts among themselves. Despite its Gnostic background, I think the trads ought to campaign for its inclusion in the canon of scripture without delay. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, the Church has harboured it covertly, and it will continue until time ends, long after Christianity has disappeared in the mists of time.
Archbishop Ncube of Bulawayo, perhaps?
That brave man is prepared to lay down his life for the atrocities in his country. The atrocities here are different in type and physical scale, but every bit as evil for all that. We're more likely to get a Cranmer than an Ncube - a sycophant, rather than a martyr.
Archbishop Santamu has a strong propensity for publicity but is disastrous as a bishop. He was disliked by his clergy in Stepney and Birmingham, and the clergy of Yorkshire are following in their footsteps and finding him difficult. He is widely seen in the North as a political appointment and his future prospects at Canterbury are nil because the Church of England has burnt its fingers with the Nigerian bishops and this has been noted at Downing Street. Honestly, Father, you're better off without him. There is no comparison between him and his predecessor, David Hope. He, if anybody, was a round peg in a round hole.
I write from America, but a friend of mine, a highly-placed clergyman in the Church of England, tells me that Sentamu is an intolerant martinet towards opponents of the purported ordination of women.
If you had an African or Indian Bishop of Arundel and Brighton you would regret the day you were born. Just think of the African and Indian dancing he would have at his enthronement for a start. Remember Santamu's at York? It was like a raid of savages.
Petroc, don't stereotype people, I don't think Abp Ranjith would have people dancing in the ailse, nor Cardinal Arinze for that matter.
If I were the Abp of York I would knock heads together, my experience of Anglican clergy is they are concerned about everything except saving souls and serving the needs of the whole Church. They need martinets.
Anonymous #1,
Are you raving mad? Don't you realise that for contemporary Judaism homosexuality was so shocking and shameful, it was so indecent that it was one of those things St Paul said shouldn't even be memtioned.
The Gospel of Judas has not been newly discovered.
If you had ever received the tiniest bit of Catechesis you would understand that the Church cannot change the canon of scripture.
If you had the slightest understanding of Christianity, or even of human nature, you would understand that sin is always present but it is the purpose of the Church, of Christianity, to overcome it. The Church by its very nature contains saints and sinners. Sin has been around for thousands of years, hence the need for Christ and His Church!
Why is it that "anonymous" invariably means lunatic! My appologies for not responding to this comment earlier.
anonymous #2,
I actually agree with you, but unless you want to be included in the lunatic fringe, find a name for yourself!
Martinets have their points but in Archbishop Santamu's case it is the orthodox he punishes, especially, as William Tighe say, those who do not accept the ordination of women. Fundamentally he is an unprincipled bully who does not listen. That is why he is unpopular. Few mind a firm bishop if he has integrity. Santamu is primarily a publicity seeker. I would assume that most readers of this blog regard themselves as orthodox. He wouldn't have much time for you.
The text of the Gosepl of Judas was only made public in 2004, previously it was only known to have existed through references in patristic documents. That sounds fairly recent to me. I think Anonymous 1 was trying to get a rise. Boy, has he succeeded! But you've overlooked his most serious point. Christ declares no teaching on this issue anywhere in the Gospels. You will look in vain for condemnation there. We owe its condemnation to St Paul.
Thankyou for the information on the Gospel of Judas, are sure you are right, I though I had read about in the 9os.
I thought I had addressed anons. point, considering the Jewish attitude to homosexuality it would be amazing to find Jesus speaking about it public, there we can safely assume that he and his contempories had the same attitude which stemmed from the OT.
Fr., must we have these tedious self-centred people on this comment page. Free speech is fine, but heresy is another thing.
Don't you get the impression that many of these comments are from disgruntled Anglicans. Hardly surprising as that Church's claim for existence was born out of its seperation from Rome and with its claim for nationalism which quickly developed in xenophobia and rapidly embraced racialism.
I suspect the discomfort with Sentamu is really based on racialism.
Post a Comment