Am on a poor internet connection today so I will get you to do the work in this competition ...
Tim Stanley reports on the outcome of the Roman synod on family here.
[Spoiler Alert: Rome remains Roman!]
As I read the report I was struck by points of comparison (e.g. conservative Africa) and points of distinction between Rome and Canterbury on matters under discussion. Matters we Anglicans have debated publicly for years but which Roman bishops have only just found their public voice (including 'public' via leakage, spin and even blogging).
What strikes you?
PS in that other World Cup competition going on at the moment, just in case you missed the news, the All Blacks are the first team ever to make four Rugby World Cup Finals.
2 comments:
Yes congrats to the All Blacks! Managed to come back from behind and then hold on as the Springboks came back at them - both difficult tasks in a RWC semi-final. Very thankful that living in the Middle East means we don't have to get up in the middle of the night for the matches! Will be cheering on the Wallabies to get over the Pumas at a very respectable 6pm this evening. Let's try and keep it civil if it's a Wallabies vs All Blacks final, shall we? We want a great contest with mutual respect, not a boo-athon. By the way, quite a remarkable achievement that Ireland, Wales and Scotland all coached by Kiwis.
Now to the serious substance of your post, Peter: the author of the article about the proceedings of th recent Synod of bishop in Rome, Tim Stanlet, is so obviously a conservative Roman Catholic that he sees the result of the recent Synod as a disappointment for the Liberals. However, he makes the fundamental mistake of committing the authorial error of double negativity:
"The bad news is that there certainly were disagreements. That is no surprise and, in fact, not a bad thing. The Church has had internal debates in its history on everything from slavery to liturgy. The problem in this instance was that in the new spirit of openness, bishops took to the media to express their views. That was a mistake."
The fact that there were disagrements cannot be both 'bad news' and 'not a bad thing'. In his haste to boost the conservative view-point he overeaches hiumself with oxymoronic exaggeration. Of course, debate must be a 'good thing' - for both the Church and her adherents. It all began in the early Church, from which contention came the first doctrinal statement. You need both Yin and Yang in order to reach concensus.
However, as Tim himself points out, the disputes had to be continued on matters of unresolved justice issues - such as the one of slavery, which he admits to. It must be acknowledged, too, that there have been other issues, like; the emancipation of women, a new biological understanding of the ontology of homosexuality, and the realisation that we are ALL sinners (still going on in the Church).
I think that Ian, like most traditional conservatives, are going to be disappointed by Pope Francis' continuing, future initiatives to bring the Church into the present-day world reality. Pope John XXIII began this 'new reformation' that Pope Francis has pledged to continue. I pray that the Curia and the Vatican trogladytes will not be able to thwart this heart-warming successor of Peter, in his bid to 'open up the Kingdom of Heaven to ALL Believers'.
Incidentally, it was good to see prelates from both Australia and New Zealand at the forefront of the Pope's invited guests to advocate for change - despite the dampening squib of Cardinal Pell, ex-Sydney.
Post a Comment