The Archbishop of Westminster has blamed Church of England bishops for keeping their leader in the dark about the Pope’s attempts to entice Anglicans to Rome.
As the Archbishop of Canterbury prepared to visit Pope Benedict XVI for the first time since plans to admit Anglican opponents of women priests into the Catholic faith were published, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, deepened the row.
Archbishop Nicholls said that it had been the “duty” of the Anglicans involved in the talks to keep their primate informed about the Pope’s plans.
Read it all and there is much more on Ruth’s blog there (follow the links).
One wonders what the ABC is thinking about, winging off to visit the bishop of Rome at this point. Seems he has very little respect for the office that he holds. Nichols’ statement, if reported accurately, is spectacularly disingenuous, even taking into account the shortness of his tenure at Westminster.
It’s all getting a little hot over there. The plain truth is, the “approaches” had been made by bishops with no connection to Canterbury and (I surmise) Anglo-Catholic CoE bishops regarded as the enemy by Canterbury and the CoE Synod. Why would there be any expectation that either of these two sets of bishops would advise Rowan Williams of their talks?
Maybe the argument is that everybody should have known Williams would dither and not do anything anyway, even if told. That’s a fair point.
I worked in an agency for a number of years where the Director’s most overused cliche was “I wasn’t aware of that!,” when in fact everyone would already know that she was intimately involved. I came up with a label for that kind of conduct: “Institutional Amnesia.” Of course, it only occurs at the convenience of its user.
That said, I suspect this effect may well describe is really happening at the core of Church life with the ABC.
I would like to think the ABC has chosen amnesia and secretly delights in an exciting vision for opponents and a clear way ahead for women bishops….but sadly his choatic nature makes me doubt this very much! SO does his body language at the announcement.
Showdown? Hilarious.
Rowan Williams hasn’t the spine for that sort of thing. I don’t know what he hopes to achieve in Rome.
So the elephant crosses the rickety old rope bridge and once he is on the other side he hears a flea whisper in his ear; “Boy, didn’t [i]we[/i] shake that bridge!”
Good luck with that whole “showdown with Rome” thing. The AC sure will shake that rope bridge. Ha!
The best of the material Ruth links to is [url=http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341020?eng=y]this blog entry[/url] by Sandro Magister in Rome. He succinctly wraps up the interview with Cardinal Kaspar, the worldwide reaction, the upcoming Papal visit, and puts a bow on it: [blockquote] This exception [for married priests] is admitted “in consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice,” as it says in article 6 of the complementary norms for “Anglicanorum Coetibus.” And although it is “merely hypothetical” (according to Cardinal Levada, in a statement on October 31), it creates a loophole in the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church, which the former Anglicans are entering.
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]I don’t know what he hopes to achieve in Rome.[/blockquote]
He hopes to be seen dressed up in splendid garb standing next to the pope as an honored guest. He hopes to shine in the light of the honors that will be granted him. He hopes to build the stature of the office he holds simply by being in Rome and with the Pope. Conversations will be incidental. Messages unimportant. The real value will be the photographs and the warmth of the regards. That’s my opinion.
I noted in Gledhill’s articles a big focus on the 33 Anglican clergy who left for Rome and then returned. Not quite so much, though, on the 220 who didn’t return. So, I suppose this was not an attempt to produce a balanced article.
Ruth Gledhill? Balanced article? That’s a good one.