One must really smile at the glorious incompetence of Britain’s chief muppet, the not-so-intrepid Rowan Williams. It is widely acknowledged that his decision to go (already) was inspired – possibly rather forced – by his tragic inability to have a clearly recognisable policy at least for thirteen minutes before breakfast. His weakness, indecisiveness and ability to write and talk so much without saying – let alone deciding – anything at all make of him a comic legend in his own times, and will be sung by generations of stand-up comedians’ lovers.
What will, then, such a tool be able to do, other than suggest to his successor how he should behave in the matter of bishopettes? It is as if Gordon Brown would offer his advice to his successor on how to be cool, popular and funny, or Obama would lecture his successor about how to reduce the deficit.
It’s just plain stupid, senseless, and unwittingly hilarious.
Also please note the arguments used: divisions here, conflict there; the uncertain outcomes, and the usual feminist talk (the “stained glass ceiling” is worth of Jay Leno on a bad day). That the matter be something to do with Truth does not seem to concern him.
Welcome to the world of Rowan Williams; the man without a policy, and the utter inability not to talk about one.
Once again, I suggest my Anglican readers to click here.
Praised as his most lucid yet.
Farewell, and good riddance…..
If I were Anglican, this would be worth a really good bottle.
It would appear that Rowan Williams has decided to take himself out of the embarrassing situation he had put himself in by doing what the likes of him – people unable to decide, incapable of taking a stance and constitutionally inept at leading – generally end up doing: hook it.
In future he will bore university students, we are told, and whilst I can’t envy them, I would suggest that in their tribulations they reflect that through their sacrifice a great embarrassment for Christianity has been taken away from a position of I do not say importance, but public relevance.
Like his predecessors, Rowan Williams has ceaselessly worked at making himself and his mickey-mouse church utterly and completely irrelevant. His intervention in favour of Sharia-law will be remembered as the Jimmy-Carter-moment of British Anglicanism, the point of deepest tragedy and humiliation; but one must say that during his tenure, RW has consistently worked at never deciding anything, never daring to displease anyone, and waffling around nonsense of such incomprehensible stupidity that not even his Anglican fans had the nerve to declare that he was saying anything astonishingly intelligent, but oh so difficult to grasp anymore.
Under his tenure, the Anglican Communion has all but officially imploded and within his own shop, the ambiguity about sodomites wanting to be clergymen and bishops has reached levels considered ridiculous even by Anglicans. He has failed in everything, hasn’t given a line of conduct or a guidance, hasn’t said what he stands for, hasn’t given any indication of how he wanted the so-called church of England to be. Oh, but he has talked a lot, and written – perhaps – even more. No doubt, he’ll be mightily pleased with himself. Now the ship is half-sunk and he takes the lifeboat, leaving others to cope with the mess he never wanted to address. Well done, skipper…
I would almost wish the Anglicans – the few serious, committed believers still out there – that his successor will be a man of strong Christian convictions, that is: something RW never allowed himself to be, because it would have been offensive to non-Christians. Almost, I say. In fact, the best thing that can happen to them is that some trendy sodomite – or friend of sodomy – is called to succeed the Muppet Man, so that the few honest Anglicans remained may be exposed to the tragedy of heresy and secularist infiltration in one go, rather than in installments. It might do them some good after all.
Good riddance, Mister Rowan Williams: we will miss the comedy factor.
His farewell speech is at the beginning of this post. Loads of clarity and entertainment factor, as always.
The so-called (this is important, “so-called”. He is an usurper. Never forget!) Archbishop of Canterbury clearly is more confused than we thought and I slowly wonder whether some professional help might not be of some use to him.
Believing to be talking in front of a North-Korean audience, our old man first decided that Shakespeare was a Catholic (I know that this has been rumoured for very long; but now that we have the confirmation from him I rather begin to doubt) and then proceeded to please the audience (he thought he was in North Korea, remember!) by saying that the fact that the old and well-off Bard was “hoarding grain and buying up property in Stratford” makes him, in the eyes of Comrade Williams, “not very attractive”. Which is rather easily said when one disposes of lodgings in places like Lambeth Palace, you might say; but we don’t want to be fussy, do we?
I wonder if someone has informed the old man that Joseph of Arimathea was so wealthy that he hoarded I do not say grain and houses, but even superfluities like …….. luxury tombs. And a very expensive one he had there, just in case…. pure capitalistic decadence! Remaining in Gospel times, Zacchaeus and Nicodemus were not entirely poor, either, but I was under the impression that Jesus seemed to find both of them attractive. How very strange…..
Clearly, Our Lord was not as socially advanced as Mr (note here: no holy orders for him I’m afraid) Williams, who just can’t like people who are doing very fine, as in: even better than he.
Possibly because no applause had ensued, he decided to reinforce the concept with the following pearl of wisdom:
“If he was a Christian, he wasn’t a saint.”
Well nor are you, old ….. boy. Nor am I, or most of us. But wait, Joseph of Arimathaea is a canonised saint!? Recognised even by most Anglicans?! How can it be, if he had so much grain on the side? And the rich Nicodemus? He is a Saint too? !You don’t say?! Who’d have thought it?! What is next, the canonisation of people who were rich enough as to have their own private zoo, like…. St. Thomas More? (Oh well, I assume Thomas More doesn’t count for the Anglicans, does he now….).
We need Mister Williams to start working seriously at the remaking of Christianity. We really do. These last two thousand years have clearly been a promising start, but without him we would still be thinking that it isn’t a sin to be rich, and that riches are a grace that must be used properly and administered like a good steward would. We would even think that the Church has been helped to carry her work by countless rich and saintly men and women, who have given generously not only to alleviate the suffering of the poor, but also to help the Church to grow and spread Christ’s word. We wouldn’t even understand that Jesus has clearly said that property is theft, so blind are we! And we would, perhaps, even be so mad as to be thankful to the countless generous donors who have allowed so many works of sacred art to be created ad maiorem dei gloriam!
Where would we be, without this old… boy.
I am so awfully, awfully sorry to have to blog about strange things I see happening (or better; I heard happened, because I most certainly refused to follow the ceremony) on this joyous day. Still, I try to be a Catholic blogger and I hope that even the most royalist among my two dozen readers will have some understanding for what I am going to say.
What strikes me as odd in today’s ceremony are 1) the vows and 2) the so-called indissolubility of the Anglican marriage.
As to 1), I was very surprised in reading that the then Kate Middleton (now Duchess of Cambridge), chose not to promise obedience. She promised instead to merely vow “love, comfort, honour and keep” to her royal husband. Now if the vow of obedience were not in the traditional formula one wouldn’t object very much to her not vowing it. But if the word is there and she chooses to take it out one might be justified in wondering whether this marriage starts on the right footing. Besides, it strikes me as odd (but it must be a Protestant thing) that in the Anglican so-called church one can pick and choose what he likes of the words of the ceremony. It reminds me of Pizza Hut, with Miss Middleton choosing ham, pepperoni and salami toppings but leaving away the extra cheese.
This signal is even more ominous if the Daily Mirror is right in informing us that there is a precedent for such “bespoke” vows, in that Princess Diana already chose not to obey. Now, considering the fact that Princess Diana went on to a rather slutty* career, one can only wonder.
As to 2), I heard on the radio a registration of the marriage vows and at the end of that, the so-called archbishop Rowan Williams said something which truly astonished me: words on the lines of
what God has put together, let no man put asunder
I couldn’t believe my ears. How can it be that a so-called church that has now long accepted that what God has put together, man can put asunder should have in her liturgy intimations that they themselves refuse to follow?
I am grateful to anyone willing to give any explanation of the theological background of the so-called church of England still keeping this formula. It might be great fun.
At the end of this post, let me for a moment forget that in my eyes every non-Catholic English Sovereign is an usurper anyway (I think it’s fair to say that James II was the last real McCoy, neglecting for a moment that Edward VII is rumoured to have died a Catholic) and let me wish the couple a happy marriage, and the groom a long and peaceful reign.
* I am being charitable here, mind.
I sometimes wonder whether those who care for such obviously superfluous, clearly failed, ridiculous outfits as ARCIC truly believe in what they are doing or simply enjoy the travels, the meals and the jolly good times.
This news would actually speak for the latter hypothesis. It turns out that the so-called Archbishop of Canterbury has nominated this woman to be part of the Anglican side of the ARCIC team. The Anglican team will be ten strong, which will make for jolly entertaining conversation.
One can imagine the Catholic side sitting in front of the Anglican ones, with the intent of discussing a possible “union” with…… a bishopette. It would make a good “Little Britain” sketch.
On the other hand, if you accept the fact that ARCIC is there to provide selected Anglicans and Catholics with a travel to Italy, some seriously good food and some pleasant conversation the entire exercise truly makes perfect sense.
Dr. Rowan Williams has given an interview to the well-know liberal and anti-Catholic newspaper, “The Times”, about homosexuality.
As amply known, Times bizarrely thinks that people will be ready to pay in order to read their internet site, which I find very funny.
It would anyway appear that the interview contained an amazing new concept: sodomy is fine unless you’re Anglican clergy. This is astonishing even by Anglican standards.
Still, I do not like to post if I can’t link to exact words and phrases.
In substitution, here is an interview (short, but highly representative of RW’s positions) given by Dr. Rowan Williams.
It is some years old now, but still of great actuality; I’d say that it reflects his positions well.
Another brilliant article by Stephen Glover on the Daily Mail.
Glover points out, with great clarity, to some striking facts:
1) Benedict’s authority eclipses Rowan Williams’
2) Irrespective of authority, Benedict has the guts to say things straight and Rowan Williams hasn’t.
3) There is a thirst for religious values. The coE can’t satisfy it. It doesn’t even want.
4) The atheist crowd has been silenced and exposed for what they are: haters. But they hate Benedict, not RW, because the latter is no threat at all.
Let us read some of the most striking passages of this eye-opening article.
“In a manner wholly unlike our home-grown clerics, the Pope spoke to the soul of our country, affirming eternal moral verities which our own political and religious leaders normally prefer to avoid”.
“Pope Benedict’s declarations over the past few days have been remarkable and, in modern Britain, virtually unprecedented”.
It is almost a shock to hear a religious leader speak in so blunt a way, so inured are we to our own religious leaders, particularly Church of England bishops, accommodating themselves to secular values.
(I would add here: Catholic bishops are not bad at accommodating secular values, either)
“The tragedy is that Dr Williams and Anglican bishops probably agree with almost everything Pope Benedict said about the dangers of secularism – and yet they do not have the courage, or whatever it takes, to say it”.
And whereas the Pope speaks clearly in English, which is his third or fourth language, Dr Williams often speaks opaquely or in riddles in the language that is his own.
(true.. 😉 ).
In his concluding address, Pope Benedict said that he had discovered ‘how deep a thirst there is among the British people for the good news of Jesus Christ’. He is right. And yet how often our national Church – the Church of England – fails to proclaim this good news.
In large parts of the Anglican Church there is a sense of defeatism in the face of the incoming tide of secularism, as congregations dwindle and parish churches close. But look at the young people in Hyde Park or those lining Princes Street in Edinburgh or those standing outside Westminster Cathedral. They yearn for the good news, and they invite moral certainty. Would it be too much to hope that Anglican bishops might learn something from the fearless commitment of the Pope?
Speaking of the aggressive anti-Catholic atheists, Glover writes:
Their foaming and often unbalanced denunciations of the Pope reveal their fear. They fear him because he adheres so strongly to traditional Christian teaching and champions principles they abhor. They fear him because the values he reiterates commend themselves to millions of people and, above all, to millions of young people. They do not trouble to vent their spite and vitriol on the Archbishop of Canterbury because Dr Williams has been so cowed by the forces of secularism that he no longer poses any threat to their bleak vision.
In invoking the heritage of our Christian past, and suggesting we might still have a principled Christian future, Benedict XVI has achieved more than the Church of England over many years. The lesson of the past few days is that Britain is not quite the deeply un-Christian country that the BBC and other parts of the media would have us believe.
Of course, Mr. Glover doesn’t get it completely right. He describes papal infallibility as “bizarre” and doesn’t even stop to reflect what be so “bizarre” in it, or to wonder whether he has perchance not just assisted to infallibility at work.
Still, this is a remarkably outspoken article making clear that the country can recover its values and that a courageous Pope, not the so-called church of England is the one able to do the job.
I imagine that a good part of the Daily Mail reader, whilst not Catholic, feel an instinctive sympathy not only for the courage of the man Benedict, but for the courage of an institution not ready to accommodate her principles to those of the world. One can only hope that in time, this vague perception may become in many a more profound feeling and identification with Christian values and the acknowledgment that those values cannot be adequately defended by imitations, but only by the Original.
Classic FM is the biggest radio station for classical music on the planet. It is listened daily by more than 5 million people. As it is fitting for such a broadcasting heavyweight, they have their own news team.
Unfortunately, this news team sounds like the lovechild of the “Guardian” and the “Independent”; so much so, that I generally switch away before the news as there’s nothing worse than beginning the day by being infuriated by those people.
This morning, I imprudently omitted to do so and therefore I heard that the Pope would held today 1) an ecumenical ceremony 2) in a “show of unity with the Anglican church” (the very words! I kid you not!).
I almost had my caffellatte going down the wrong pipe. Besides the obvious absurdity of the “show of unity” with an ecclesial community of which the Church doesn’t even recognise the validity of the order (and which, by the way, goes to show the extent of wrong information and utter tosh spread even by national media outlets), I was not at all pleased at hearing that still another “ecumenical encounter of the wrong kind” would take place. The words led me to assume that it would be a mass, which would be unsurprising by people thinking that this would be a “show of unity”; but honestly I do not remember the exact words now as the “show of unity” bomb and the caffellatte took all my attention.
Can you imagine Pius IX having an ecumenical Mass with the so-called archbishop of Canterbury? Pius X perhaps? Pius XI? What about Pius XII?
There is a reason for this. Whatever the theological gimmicks used to justify such exercises, every ecumenical Mass engenders the idea that there be no big difference whether one is Catholic or Anglican, whether his communion is the Real Presence or a fraud, whether the celebrant is a priest or a layman, a Catholic or a Heretic.
This cannot be right and in fact it isn’t. Every old doctrinal text or booklet will tell you that a Catholic is supposed not to pray together with members of other faiths, let alone participating to ecumenical masses.
Therefore, after succeeding in sending my caffellatte down the right pipe and as I felt the usual adrenaline surge of such occasions, I thought that this was a very bad mistake.
Thankfully, though, the website of the papal visit seems to give a different view. The program merely mentions a “fraternal visit”, with the Evensong. The papal visit website doesn’t even say whether it will concelebrated. It might be that the Pontiff merely listens, I do not know yet.
Bad as this is, this not an ecumenical mass, which softens the blow considerably. Still, I do think that this is a mistake and that the Papal visit should have sent a stronger message in defence of Catholicism and should have paid more attention in order to avoid any confusion between the Only Church and the rest. You can be diplomatic without being ambiguous after all.
How inappropriate this Evensong is, is showed by the likes of Classic FM, for which this largely diplomatically motivated encounter becomes “a show of unity”. One could say that the Pontiff is not responsible for the superficiality of utterly ignorant liberals and one would be right; but once again we are in front of the importance of sending a clear message.
A lot of people inform themselves only superficially; the Church should, if you ask me, help even superficially informed people not to have any doubt about what is what.