Within the Diocese, Bishop Pete [Broadbent] is a most valued friend and colleague. I am deeply grateful to him for our partnership in the gospel and was able to say that when I visited him and Sarah at home on Sunday.
What the outside world sees is a bishop who represents the Church of England making comments abut a marriage for which Bishop Pete has himself apologised unreservedly. The subsequent action has been taken in consultation with Pete. The best course now is for us all to refrain from comment and observe the order of the day ”“ heads down or heads off.
Another aspect of the turbulence to which I have referred is of course the Bishop of Fulham’s retirement. Bishop John has served the Diocese for more than forty years in variety of roles and many of us have reason to be grateful for his ministry. He has the gift of colourful speech and there may be some Synod members unconvinced by his suggestion that he was leaving a “fascist” institution for Liberty Hall on Tiber. All people, however, who act conscientiously deserve our understanding.
There does however seem to be a degree of confusion about whether those entering the Ordinariate like Bishop John might be able to negotiate a transfer of properties or at the least explore the possibility of sharing agreements in respect of particular churches. For the avoidance of confusion I have to say that as far as the Diocese of London is concerned there is no possibility of transferring properties. As to sharing agreements I have noted the Archbishop of Westminster’s comment that his “preference is for the simplest solutions. The simplest solutions are for those who come into Catholic communion to use Catholic churches”. I am also mindful that the late Cardinal Hume, whom I greatly revered, brought to an end the experiment of church sharing after the Synod’s decision of 1992 because far from being conducive to warmer ecumenical relations it tended to produce more rancour.
What on earth does this mean: “heads down or heads off”?
I imagine it means the Bishop of London thinks he is playing a character from Alice in Wonderland.
“As to sharing agreements I have noted the Archbishop of Westminster’s comment that his “preference is for the simplest solutions. The simplest solutions are for those who come into Catholic communion to use Catholic churches.”
Is he referring to those Catholic churches (like Westminister Abbey) that were built by Catholics and stolen by Henry VIII, or more recent Catholic churches that have not yet been stolen?
#3 They were always part of the Church of England, Clueless, and so they remain. You are better than that.
I bet if the Vatican back then had been as aggressively litigious as 815 is, the Abbey and all those other great English churches would have been tied up in litigation for a hundred years.
Fascist? What’s this? Does anyone know? Larry
The cathedrals were built more as evidence of political power than anything, if we’re going to be honest about it. Over the past few days I’ve been watching an outstanding UK series on Monarchy via Netflix. Fascinating stuff. I highly recommend it.
And he’s right. Sharing church buildings leads more to embarrassing displays of bad behavior and doesn’t foster ecumenical spirit. There are frequent tussles between the sects sharing access to the Holy Sites in Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
Larry,
In his resignation statement to the press, the ex-Bishop of Fulham referred to the CofE as, in the same breath, simultaneously too liberal and fascist at the same time.
The Doctor was promptly summoned to fix the rift in time and space the ex-Bishop’s spoken cognitive dissonance created. So no worries. 🙂
I have been wondering why with his friendship with the Prince of Wales dating back to Cambridge, and a clear conflict of interest, why he did not hand over the matter to another bishop? I also wonder how the bishop has applied due church ‘process’ in this case of the constructive suspension of Bishop Pete, who is still apparently under house arrest? +Richard needs to go on an employment law course.
btw Wikileaks have released what looks like Bishop Chartres reporting back to his friends on his latest exercise of ‘discipline’ as practiced in the Diocese of London.
“They were always part of the Church of England, Clueless, and so they remain”
So why were the abbys, which were run by religious orders, appropriated or destroyed by the Crown?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Monasteries
#10 I don’t approve the dissolution of the monasteries, although reform was necessary. The religious houses owned vast tracts of the country, and kept themselves going in many cases by keeping those on their estates in conditions of serfdom through service and taxes. There had been a battle running for power in the church between the bishops and the abbots for several hundred years previously.
But I think in the final analysis, although there were doubts about the loyalties of the monasteries, it came down to money. Henry VIII was broke, and the monasteries were enormously wealthy. They were however not part of anything other than the church in England and subject to the laws of England, including the laws by which they were dissolved.
And I think, that nowadays we tend to have a view of these institutions as benign and friendly, dispensing loaves of bread to travellers, and medical care to the sick. One has to remember that many of them were founded by kings and nobles for the express purpose of saying endless prayers and masses for their dead patrons. The monasteries grew rich from a network of chantries and foundations across the country to whom they provided monks to say these masses for the dead. Often they were funded by individuals who endowed them in terror, disinheriting their heirs to pass their estates to the monasteries, having been subject to such fear of their prospects in the afterlife in purgatory, if they did not do so. It along with the sale of indulgences, and relics was a racket.
There was certainly a need for reform, without which Britain would probably not have developed as it has into a democratic constitutional modern state.
“I have been wondering why with his friendship with the Prince of Wales dating back to Cambridge, and a clear conflict of interest, why he did not hand over the matter to another bishop?”
The Bishop of London, if he is a toady(I don’t know the man), probably wouldn’t be the first to consider himself above the “rules” re: conflicts of interest. The lack of self-awareness regarding the lack of objectivity(maybe amongst other things) would not be new either.
Pageantmaster is also correct about the monasteries. Some did fantastic work, others did not. I’ve read the same history. One hopes that God is present, but monasteries were also made of humans living in community–no different than most humans living in an “organized” way, subject to all the usual temptations, vices, and corruption. Think about them as a large family–there could be great brotherhood and service, but also the potential to dissolve into infighting, moneygrubbing, power trips, and any other dysfunction.
There’s a reason why I follow the example of a friend of mine, who for years was a RC bishop, and later became an Anglican bishop. He refuses to have ANYTHING to do with mass cards, even for his RC friends. Most people are not familiar with the history.
“There’s a reason why I follow the example of a friend of mine, who for years was a RC bishop, and later became an Anglican bishop.”
That’s interesting, but I know of no “RC bishop” who became “an Anglican bishop” in the 20th/21st Century. I can think of a one-time Orthodox priest who is an “extra-mural” Anglican bishop, but bot one that fits your description, Bookworm. Are you sure of your facts?
Bookworm, was your friend formerly an RC bishop, or rather, priest?
Pageantmaster, as a non-Brit, it does seem to me that Bishop Pete has been adequately punished for inappropriate remarks and should now be allowed to get back to his duties.
Katherine, I agree.
Let us also remember at this time of year and pray for the release of all prisoners for Christ, whether they be in China, Eritrea, or Dean’s Court.