Churchgoers in almost 300 parishes that disapprove of women priests may take advantage of Pope Benedict XVI’s offer to change denomination if their “flying bishops” lead the way.

However the Church of England is expected to make a last-ditch attempt to stop the disillusioned groups leaving, by offering them concessions over the introduction of female bishops.

As The Sunday Telegraph disclosed, the bishops of Fulham, Richborough and Ebbsfleet held a secret meeting with papal advisers last week to discuss plans for Anglicans to convert to the Roman Catholic Church en masse.

At least one key member of the English Catholic church’s commission on the Anglican Ordinariate ”“ the Pope’s move to allow Anglicans to enter into full communion with the Holy See while retaining some of their spiritual heritage ”“ was in Rome at the same time.

Read it all.

Then on the way home we bought a Sunday Paper to find the Telegraph spinning nonsense about ”˜defections’ to the Catholic Church. Most of what they wrote was reprinted from a stolen email they had already published months ago. All that was new was an assertion that three of our Bishops had visited Rome. If they did, and no chapter and verse was given, then the Newspaper was unable to find anything about what was said, whom they had met, why they were there. Just daft speculation.

This is the sort of nonsense we must expect to see appearing in the media over the next few months, as preparations are made for the visit to England of the Holy Father. Meanwhile, I am getting ready to go on Pilgrimage to Fatima next week. And, guess what, the Pope will be there too! No doubt the pilgrimage of half a million Portuguese has been specially arranged in order to cloak the secret meetings between me and the Holy Father! I hope I might possibly get near enough to take a photo with my zoom lens, and you should with luck be able to pick out a small figure in white somewhere in the crowds ”“ look for my blog two weeks or so from now”¦ but don’t breathe a word to the Sunday Telegraph.

Read the whole thing.

A leading Anglo-Catholic source contacts me this morning naming several English Catholic bishops whom he thinks were in Rome for this summit. He confirms that “very few people on our side” (ie, the C of E) knew it was happening.]

A fascinating update on the Ordinariate story tonight from Jonathan Wynne-Jones: the Church of England bishops of Fulham, Richborough and Ebbsfleet have basically said yes to the Pope’s offer. They were at the Vatican last week to discuss the details, apparently. The RC Bishops of England and Wales are hopelessly divided on the Ordinariate scheme, so Bishops John Broadhurst, Keith Newton and Andrew Burnham have gone to the top. Very wise.

Read it all.

In a move likely to raise tensions between the two Churches, a group of Church of England bishops met last week with advisers of Pope Benedict XVI to set in motion steps that would allow priests to convert to Catholicism en masse.

They are set to resign their orders in opposition to the introduction of women bishops and to lead an exodus of Anglican clerics to the Catholic Church despite Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, urging them not to leave.

It would be the first time for nearly 20 years that large numbers of priests have crossed from the Church of England to Rome, and comes only weeks ahead of a crucial General Synod debate on making women bishops.

The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that bishops travelled to the Holy See last week to hold face to face discussions with senior members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the most powerful of the Vatican’s departments.

Read it all.

Lord Justice Laws’s judgment on the Gary McFarlane case in the Court of Appeal ”“ that legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious ground cannot be justified ”“ has driven a coach and horses through the ancient association of the Christian faith with the constitutional and legal basis of British society.

Everything from the Coronation Oath onwards suggests that there is an inextricable link between the Judaeo-Christian tradition of the Bible and the institutions, the values and the virtues of British society. If this judgment is allowed to stand, the aggressive secularists will have had their way.

It also raises a number of fundamental questions to which answers need to be provided. Will there be, once again, a religious bar to holding office? We have already had a rash of cases involving magistrates unable to serve on the bench because of their Christian beliefs, registrars losing their jobs because they cannot, in conscience, officiate at civil partnerships, paediatricians unable to serve on adoption panels”¦ Will this trickle gradually become a flood, so that rather than conforming to the Church of England, the new discrimination tests will involve conforming to the secular religion as promoted by Lord Justice Laws?

Read it all.

The Bishop of Durham, Dr N. T. Wright, has announced that he will be retiring from the See of Durham on August 31.

Dr Wright, who will be 62 this autumn, is returning to the academic world, in which he spent the first twenty years of his career, and will take up a new appointment as Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews in Scotland.

Announcing his move, Bishop Tom said, ”˜This has been the hardest decision of my life. It has been an indescribable privilege to be Bishop of the ancient Diocese of Durham, to work with a superb team of colleagues, to take part in the work of God’s kingdom here in the north-east, and to represent the region and its churches in the House of Lords and in General Synod. I have loved the people, the place, the heritage and the work. But my continuing vocation to be a writer, teacher and broadcaster, for the benefit (I hope) of the wider world and church, has been increasingly difficult to combine with the complex demands and duties of a diocesan bishop. I am very sad about this, but the choice has become increasingly clear.’

Read it all.

[Archbishop Rowan] Williams is a fifty-nine-year-old Welshman with a beautiful voice, a full white beard, and fearsome, flyaway black eyebrows that in pictures, or when he is thinking hard, can make him look like a monk out of Dostoyevsky””a resemblance that is said to please him. He wrote a book about Dostoyevsky in 2008. His manner is friendly, more professorial than priestly. He taught theology for most of the nineteen-eighties, at Cambridge and then at Oxford, where, at thirty-six, he became the youngest person ever to hold the university’s oldest academic chair. His students””some of them now the priests berating him most strongly for his reluctance to put himself, and his office, on the line for a cause he is known to support””call him the most engrossing teacher they ever had. After a few minutes, I believed it. Williams has a disarming mind, a modesty, and an appetite for conversation, a way of thinking out loud, that belies the austerity of his title. At one point, he stopped himself, saying, “Sorry, this is turning into a sermon.”

“How do you eat an elephant?” he said, with something between a chuckle and a sigh, when I asked how he hoped to hold his church together, given that the demands of Anglican women were so completely at odds with the demands of Anglican men whose own inclusion specifically involved excluding those women from episcopal service. “I suppose it’s by using as best I can the existing consultative mechanisms to create a climate””and I think that’s often the best, to create a climate,” he told me. “There’s a phrase which has struck me very much: that you can actually ruin a good cause by pushing it at the wrong moment and not allowing the process of discernment and consent to go on, and that’s part of my view.” He thought that with time, patience, and enough discussion within the Church you could temper the opposition to female bishops””despite the fact that three synods since 1994 have tried to address the issue, and the opposition remains intractable. His friends call this “Rowan’s Obama syndrome”: the persistence of a commendable but not very realistic belief in the power of reason to turn your enemies into allies.

Read it all.

I was particularly interested in the news yesterday that scientists at Newcastle University have been able to replace the nucleus of one women’s egg with the nucleus from another egg to stop a child being born with mitochondrial disease. This is a disease affecting one child in 6,500, which can result in blindness, heart failure and other serious conditions. For six years, until the beginning of this year, I had the privilege of being on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and this was one of the many difficult issues that we had to decide about. Indeed, our decision to allow research in this area was challenged right up to the highest court in the land.

These are indeed contentious issues, but I think it is important first to be clear about what we mean by the much used word “natural”. It is not natural to us simply to let nature take its course. What is natural for us as human beings is to use our God given brains to interact with nature for human wellbeing….

Read it all.

On Wednesday, April 7, 2010, St. Helena’s, Beaufort hosted a “Conversation with the Bishops.” Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop Mark Lawrence, Bishop FitzSimons Allison, and Bishop Alden Hathaway engaged in a conversation about the Anglican Communion and its emerging global biblical mission.

Listen to it all.

How do we know all this? How can this dying be at the centre of our Christian faith? Only because the Cross is seen in the light of Easter. The Gospels do not end with the cry of dereliction, and the limp and tortured body taken from the Cross and laid hastily in a tomb. If the stone rolled across the entrance to that tomb had sealed the story of Jesus as well as his lifeless body, there would be no Christian gospel, no good news of salvation, no church.

On Easter morning, ”˜on the first day of the week, just as the sun was rising’ the tomb is found empty. Why? Because resurrection, the new creation, has happened. In a multitude of mysterious encounters that new life is found to be victorious and triumphant. ”˜He is not here, he is risen.’ The Risen Christ speaks to a grief-stricken Mary Magdalene, and calls her by name; he walks as a stranger with sorrowing disciples, and their hearts burn within them. He makes himself known in the breaking of bread. He bursts through the imprisoning walls of grief and fear to speak the word of peace ”“ the peace which is the harmony of the new creation, a peace which passes all understanding. New life ripples out from the empty tomb in a transforming tsunami of love.

Love’s redeeming work is done,
Fought the fight the battle won,
Lo our sun’s eclipse is o’er,
Lo he sets in blood no more.
”˜The Prince of Life who died, reigns immortal!’

Read it all.

After the announcement that the General Election will be held on 6 May, church leaders have urged Chris­tians to get involved in the political process.

The Bishop of Lincoln, Dr John Saxbee, said “representative demo­cracy can only be effective when those in Government have a cred­ible mandate,” and called on the elect­orate, particularly Christians, to vote in “a thoughtful and considered way”. “It is especially important for Christians to take this responsibility seriously at a time when representa­tives of far-Right parties are stand­ing for election, the policies of which need to be roundly resisted.”

Christians are being targeted by the British National Party (BNP). In a letter sent to the editor of the Church Times, a “believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who had always been opposed to the BNP” but has now joined the party said that it was “light years ahead” of the three mainstream parties in promoting Christian stand­ards and morals. “It is possible to support the BNP and keep a clear conscience before God,” he wrote.

Read it all.

While conscience continues to be formed by the Judaeo-Christian moral tradition, it is being undermined by several forces. Peter highlights the corrosive effects of the two world wars and the disillusion that they have brought. But he is also conscious of the deliberate way in which Marxists and neo-Marxists have sought to undermine “bourgeois morality” as preparation for the revolution. Whatever advanced its arrival was good. Today’s radical secularists may have lost the thirst for revolution but the social agenda of neo-Marxism has become an end in itself. There remain strong connections, however, between the New Atheism and the Old: restricting the freedom of speech in promoting a politically-correct utopia; interfering with the right of free association; extending the role of the State; and schemes to “protect” children from the religious influence of their parents are some of the areas which are seen by Peter as points of attachment to the old way of doing things.

The New Atheists confuse fundamental human rights with the right to instant self-gratification and self-indulgence, which not only weaken society from the inside but also render it less able to counter any threats to it from outside.

He gives is a good account of the substitutes for true religion, such as the post-war cult of Winston Churchill, or national or local observances, such as Remembrance Day ceremonies. There is a great deal of criticism of a kind of hyper-patriotism founded on a false religiosity. But what is the basis for a critical but real patriotism? Must it not be in the defence of a shared story that is not so much about race or place as about the transformed understanding of persons and of society brought by the story of the Bible? Hitchens says of the terrorists that they “know how to die” because they have a shared story, even if it is a false one. Can our soldiers make sense of their situation in the context of a shared story? If their sacrifices are to mean anything, we must provide such a story that is worth defending and even dying for.

Read it all.

Does all this amount to persecution or marginalisation? Here the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is right to remind us that in far too many countries in the world today Christians really are harassed and killed for their faith. Whatever is happening in this country we need to keep it in perspective. I have not been conscious of any anti-Christian feeling towards myself. However, I was shocked recently by the story of one eminent citizen, a serious, if liberal, Christian, who publicly defended an act of Christian witness and who told me that they had experienced the most extraordinary scorn and hostility from colleagues. So it is clearly around.

The contrast between the United States and this country could not be sharper when it comes to the public declaration of religious faith. The mention of God seems mandatory for any American politician who wishes to be elected. In this country, as Tony Blair remarked when he retired as Prime Minister, he did not mention his personal faith when in office because people would have thought him “a nutter”. A more healthy state of affairs would be one in which people could speak naturally about their faith if they have one, without implying that those without it are morally lacking or defective in some way, and without this arousing suspicion and hostility.

A lot, of course, depends on the tone of voice. The word “Christian” can be said in such a way as to imply superiority. The other unfortunate implication of this labelling can be its divisiveness. For if I am “a Christian”, there are others who are not. They are not “one of us”.

Read the whole piece.

From here:

The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, recently retired 106th Bishop of the Church of England/Diocese of Rochester, will be a guest at St. Helena’s, Beaufort, from April 5-14.

On Wednesday, April 7, Bishop Nazir-Ali will be joined by Bishop Mark Lawrence, Bishop FitzSimons Allison, and Bishop Alden Hathaway. Together, they will engage a conversation about the Anglican Communion and its emerging global biblical mission. All are invited to this special event.

Jesus of Nazareth was certainly dead by the Friday evening; Roman soldiers were professional killers and wouldn’t have allowed a not-quite-dead rebel leader to stay that way for long. When the first Christians told the story of what happened next, they were not saying: “I think he’s still with us in a spiritual sense” or “I think he’s gone to heaven”. All these have been suggested by people who have lost their historical and theological nerve.

The historian must explain why Christianity got going in the first place, why it hailed Jesus as Messiah despite His execution (He hadn’t defeated the pagans, or rebuilt the Temple, or brought justice and peace to the world, all of which a Messiah should have done), and why the early Christian movement took the shape that it did. The only explanation that will fit the evidence is the one the early Christians insisted upon – He really had been raised from the dead. His body was not just reanimated. It was transformed, so that it was no longer subject to sickness and death.

Let’s be clear: the stories are not about someone coming back into the present mode of life. They are about someone going on into a new sort of existence, still emphatically bodily, if anything, more so. When St Paul speaks of a “spiritual” resurrection body, he doesn’t mean “non-material”, like a ghost. “Spiritual” is the sort of Greek word that tells you,not what something is made of, but what is animating it. The risen Jesus had a physical body animated by God’s life-giving Spirit. Yes, says St Paul, that same Spirit is at work in us, and will have the same effect – and in the whole world.

Read it all.

Christians in Britain are being persecuted and “treated with disrespect”, senior bishops have said.

Six prominent bishops and Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, describe the “discrimination” against churchgoers as “unacceptable in a civilised society”.

In a thinly-veiled attack on Labour, they claim that traditional beliefs on issues such as marriage are no longer being upheld and call on the major parties to address the issue in the run-up to the general election.

In a letter to The Sunday Telegraph, the bishops express their deep disquiet at the double standards of public sector employers, claiming that Christians are punished while followers of other faiths are treated far more sensitively.

Read it all.

This is yet another case in which the religious rights of the Christian community are being treated with disrespect. We are deeply concerned at the apparent discrimination shown against Christians and we call on the Government to remedy this serious development.

In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld. There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country. We believe that the major parties need to address this issue in the coming general election.

The cross is ubiquitous in Christian devotion from the earliest times and clearly the most easily recognisable Christian symbol. For many Christians, wearing a cross is an important expression of their Christian faith and they would feel bereft if, for some unjustifiable reason, they were not allowed to wear it. To be asked by an employer to remove or “hide” the cross, is asking the Christian to hide their faith.

Read it all and note the signatories.

The Rt Rev Stephen Cottrell, Bishop of Reading, will take up the post officially in the autumn.

But on Monday he came to the county town to introduce himself.

He said: “I knew about six or seven weeks ago, but it was surrounded by secrecy.

“I was born and brought up in Essex and although I have not lived here since I was 18, I think of it as home.”

“I am looking forward to returning to this large and richly diverse diocese and excited by the challenges that lie ahead.”

Read it all.

The Right Reverend Stephen Cottrell, Bishop of Reading, has been nominated by Her Majesty the Queen as Bishop of Chelmsford in succession to The Right Reverend John Gladwin. He will be the tenth Bishop of Chelmsford.

Bishop Stephen Cottrell said: “I was born and brought up in Essex, and it is still the place I think of as home. Now I have been invited to return to this large, diverse and richly varied diocese to serve as your bishop. It is an immense privilege.

“What sustains me in ministry is the joy and beauty of the gospel. I want us to be a church that is gospel centred, servant hearted and mission focused. I am hungry for us to be a church that connects with every person and every community.

Read it all.

Bishops in the House of Lords have been urged to become involved with the reform of the upper chamber. Reports this week said that the Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, would propose replacing the Lords with a wholly elected 300-seat senate.

The think tank Ekklesia and the democracy campaign Power2010 said last week that reform was inevitable. In an email campaign that targeted the 26 bishops who sit in the Lords, the two groups had forwarded 59,681 messages by Wednesday calling on them for “clear and principled leader­ship to take this forward” .

The emails asked the bishops to sup­port “core principles” that both Chris­tian and non-Christian demo­crats could share, which included the requirement that people of faith should face election with no special privileges and no reserved places.

Read it all.

Anglican Mainstream, whilst acknowledging that Bishop Jones reflects a way of thinking which is gaining ground amongst some English evangelicals, considers it deeply flawed in terms of both teaching and practice. In terms of practice, such teaching fails to recognise that the deep logic of the gay/lesbian movement is the abolition of the Judaeo-Christian understanding of human identity, towards which acceptance of gay ”˜marriage’ is a key step. Faced with the uncomfortable prospect of having constantly to challenge quietly established ”˜facts on the ground’ which gay activists have been openly following for years, the temptation to re-frame the question as a pastoral problem ”“ one of ”˜go along and get along’ -becomes almost overwhelming. That is a fundamental error, the second deep flaw in this way of thinking. As the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement has said, and the comments attached to this Statement indicate, the issue here is one of false teaching. False teaching is not to be colluded with, but to be challenged – and overcome by patient and thorough exposition of biblical truth. The unity to which the Church is called is oneness in Christ, faithful to the Scriptures which authoritatively reveal Him. That is the unity which must underpin our calling to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with a needy and broken world.

Read it all.

The Reformation was bad for England, and the nation would do well to become a Catholic country again.

This was the affirmation proposed by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor on Tuesday during a debate hosted by The Spectator magazine as part of its debate series. The topic under discussion was “England Should Be a Catholic Country Again,” and the cardinal — who is a retired archbishop of Westminster — was joined by author Piers Paul Read and Dom Antony Sutch, parish priest of St. Benets Catholic Church, in speaking for the motion.

Speaking against the motion were Lord Richard Harries, retired Anglican bishop of Oxford; Matthew Parris, former Conservative Member of Parliament and currently a columnist for the Times; and Stephen Pound, Labour Party Member of Parliament.

Though affirming that the Reformation “brought a tremendous loss to this country,” the core of Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s contribution focused on an ecumenical vision.

“My vision is for the English Church, united with all its history and genius, is to be aligned and in communion with the billion and more Catholic Christians throughout the world, with 4,000 or 5,000 bishops and in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope,” he said.

Read it all.

I mention that some Christian theologians seem to say that Allah is not the same God as the Judaeo-Christian God. At that question, Dr Nazir-Ali becomes visibly uncomfortable. He pauses a long time, formulating his reply, as if his life depended on the answer.

The terrifying truth is that, in modern Britain, his life could indeed depend on how he answers this question. He knows this well, for he has received death threats in the past, and has been under police protection.

“I would say that Islam has a sense of the God of the Bible but, for various reasons, understands the nature of that God, and God’s action in the world, quite differently,” he says.
I then ask whether he regards it as an open theological question as to whether they are the same.

He replies quickly: “I don’t think that they are the same. Muslims, like everyone else, have some sense of the One God… but the way in which they understand the nature and the work of that God is very different from the Judaeo-Christian way.

“While Islam wants to take power to change the world, Christianity is about turning away from power to change the world. And that has to do with a view of God. We have a God who humbled himself and took the form of a slave, and accepted death. And that is the source of Christian power, the Cross. So, clearly, in any Christian view of polity, and Muslim view of polity, there must be a radical difference.

Read it all.

Given its focus and central argument, it is particularly alarming that the address offers no engagement with Scripture or Christian tradition or Anglican teaching either in relation to sexuality or in its attempt to argue that ethical diversity in this area is legitimate. Although many of the practical implications of his argument for diversity remain rather vague it is clear that he is seeking to move the Church of England and the Communion away from its current position. In so doing he also makes a number of claims in passing that raise deeper theological questions about the nature of sin and grace and the relation of church and society.

In summary, the general position advocated is one which would move the Church of England away not only from its current teaching but also from its methodology of careful, rigorous engagement with the complexities of this subject rooted in Scripture, tradition and wider ecumenical reflections. What is being advocated instead is the sort of approach taken by the North American provinces which has moved from the seemingly uncritical (and theologically undefended) acceptance of a diversity of views on sexuality within a small part of Christ’s church to the inevitable abandonment of traditional teaching and discipline within the Anglican province and then to the marginalisation and exclusion of those who seek to uphold the biblical and traditional Christian sexual ethic. It is, sadly, for that reason, that the address is of such significance and concern and merits careful analysis, critique and engagement from the wider church, including others in episcopal leadership.

Read it all.

100 years after his death, the Diocese of Lincoln will be honoured by an extended visit from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams, who strongly believes that it is necessary to honour Edward King.

“Edward King reinvented two things in the 19th century,” said the Archbishop.

“He reinvented pastoral theology − the whole science of training a clergy which was competent pastorally and humanly; clergy who had a sort of professionalism in care.

“And he reinvented what a diocesan bishop could be and do, I think, in terms of accessibility, concern for the poorest − not something that other 19th century bishops had ignored, but certainly something that he brought to the fore in a quite fresh way.

“I think that in both of the those ways he contributed enormously to what we now absolutely take for granted about the role of a priest and a bishop.”

Read it all.

Whilst I understand fully where Bishop Jones is coming from, I want to suggest that his analysis and comparison of issues around human sexuality and just war is incorrect for a number of reasons, some theological and some sociological and biological.

First, issues around human sexuality cut deep to the core of anthropology in a way that the pacifism/militarism debate does not. The traditional human moral is not just about how human beings should behave sexually but on a much deeper level about core issues of identity. As Bishop Jones himself recognises in his speech, human sexuality is an ontological identification in a way that an ethical position on war or peace can never be. Sexual orientation and identity lies at the heart of a person’s sense of being, and often this is misunderstood by those in this debate, especially on the conservative side of the argument. To often we try to make clean and clinical divisions between sin and the sinner, but when one’s attractions are integral to our sense of person-hood such a dichotomy is difficult to maintain. We are created sexual beings and sexual activity is vital and essential to the procreation of the human race ”“ it is something that we simply cannot do without. The argument over war and peace is a discussion about how to resolve issues on a corporate level ”“ the argument over sexual activity and identity is a discussion about the very depth of our created beings. People never define themselves as “born pacifist” or claim to have “pacifist genes”, but when it comes to sexual orientation these fundamental propositions are constantly presented and appealed to. The discussion is not just about how we should act, it is about who we were created to be.

Read it all.

A leading evangelical bishop will today call for Anglicans to “accept a diversity of ethical convictions” gay sex in order to prevent schism.

The Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Rev James Jones, will use his presidential address to his diocesan synod today to argue that for an end to the battles over sexuality in the Anglican Communion so the Church can focus on mission.

In his address, seen by The Times, he compares the debate over homosexuality to that over going to war, in spite of the commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill.”

Just as the Just War doctrine evolved to allow Christians to reconcile their faith with their civic duty to fight for their country, so those on the conservative side of the gay sex debate should accept those on the liberal side for the sake of Anglican peace.

He also, controversially, takes issue with the conservative line that sexuality is a matter of choice. Instead, he argues that like ethnicity, it is a “given”.

Read it all.

we cannot let it go unremarked that Bishop Harries is eager to claim Cardinal Newman as one of his own. Newman’s essay on the Development of Doctrine is a seminal, nuanced and powerful piece of theological writing. The essay’s essential point is that the Christian faith can develop in understanding, but not in a way that contradicts the core teaching of the Apostles. Instead of any intellectual argument, Bishop Harries grabs the title of Newman’s essay, and uses it, and Newman’s reputation as a propaganda piece to bolster innovations in the Church of England which would have astounded and scandalized Newman. Is it possible that a person of Bishop Harries learning and experience is blind to the fact that Newman’s whole spiritual journey was a repudiation of the kind of Oxford, hoity toity faux Catholicism that Bishop Harries represents?

Can Bishop Harries really have missed the entire point of Cardinal Newman’s pilgrimage to Rome? Does he not see that the great man stepped down from the heights of his career in Oxford and in the Church of England to take the very step into the Catholic Church that Bishop Harries sneers at?

Lord Pentregarth is honest in choosing not to become a Catholic, but if he does not want to be a Catholic why does he keep masquerading as one? Most of all he should resist the temptation to kidnap a figure as great and good as Cardinal Newman and hold him to ransom for his own progressivist agenda.

Read it all.

That which I have stated explicitly in this address I believe we are already living out implicitly, namely that we do already as a Diocese accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality in the same way that the church has always allowed a diversity of ethical opinion on taking human life. Within our own fellowship we are brothers and sisters in Christ holding a variety of views on a number of major theological and moral issues and we are members of a church that characteristically allows a large space for a variety of nuances, interpretations, applications and disagreement. I know that sometimes it stretches us, but never to breaking point, for it seems to me that there is a generosity of grace that holds us all together.

If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be? That in a world of such little love two people sought to express a love that no other relationship could offer them? And if those advocating the acceptance of gay relationship are right and the traditionalists are wrong what will their sin be? That in a church that has forever wrestled with interpreting and applying Scripture they missed the principle in the application of the literal text?
Do these two thoughts not of themselves enlarge the arena in which to do our ethical exploration?

This address has been about how we handle disagreements about ethical principles within the Body of Christ. It is also about how we promote a Christian humanism whereby we discover before God both how to flourish as human beings in Christ and how to treat each other humanely in the process of that discovery. It is my plea that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion must allow a variety of ethical views on the subject as in this Diocese we do and that to do so finds a parallel in the space it offers for a diversity of moral positions on the taking of life. Although it will doubtless remain a disputed question for some time in the wider church I hope this approach will continue to allow for the development of a humane pastoral theology here in the Diocese of Liverpool.

I have not addressed today the implications of this position for the ordering and governance of the church but I wish you to know that in due course we will discuss these in parishes, deaneries and in the Diocesan Synod as we continue to do together our pastoral theology on this subject recognising that decisions belong ultimately to the General Synod and to the House of Bishops.

Read it all.

Lord Alli’s amendment to the Equality Bill, which allows civil partnerships to be registered on religious premises, if religious bodies wish to allow it, was approved during the Report Stage in the House of Lords on Tuesday by 95 votes to 21.

The proposed changes to the Civil Partnership Act had been significantly modified since the debate in January (News, 5 February). The scope is narrowed to England and Wales, and the existing rule that “no religious service is to be used while the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil partnership document” is retained.

An additional clause reads: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.” A further clause states: “Regulations may provide that premises approved for the registration of civil partnerships may differ from those premises approved for the registration of civil marriages.”

Lord Alli stressed that the issue was one of religious freedom. “Religious freedom means letting the Quakers, the liberal Jews, and others host civil partnerships. It means accepting that the Church of England and the Catholic Church should not host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”

Read it all.