Archbishop of Canterbury says RC Church 'has lost credibility'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As an Anglican (NOT Episcopalian) myself, I think it takes some incredible nerve for Archbishop Williams to make a statement like this.

His actions (or lack of action) has led to the Anglican Communion being a laughing stock in the modern Christian world. His “leadership” has led us to a split over gay and lesbian clergy and Bishops, women’s ordination to the Priesthood, and the need for Africa to step in and take over Episcopal oversight of conservative Anglicans in America.

He has done nothing to quench these fires.

I praise God for the conservative, Christ-honoring Archbishops of Africa for stepping in where Williams wouldn’t. I also thank the Lord for The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI for setting up the Anglican Ordinaries, so that conservative Anglicans can find safety and oversight under the leadership of Rome.

Williams is a man who is so focused on diplomacy and “unity of the communion” that he has lost any ability to point to a situation or action and say “Heresy!” Even when the heretical is as plain as the beard on his face.

I love my Church, I love the Anglican tradition. I find it to be one of the most beautiful in all of Christendom. But our leadership, all the way up to the top, needs a good slap in the face.

Brothers and sisters, I ask your prayers for the Anglican Communion. Pray for her healing, and for her ongoing relationship and (hopefully) eventual reconciliation with Rome and the East, that Christ’s Church may be “perfectly One.”
 
The Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to win back the Anglo-Catholics that got fed up with the immorality of the episcopate and left. His church is in shambles and its going broke.

It was normal for ALL institutions, public or private, to deal with scandals internally in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. The psychologists and psychiatrists were over-selling themselves. The Church would have been viewed as mean and “unChristian” by following todays standards back then.

Yes, there have been sick priests. They are in jail or dead. Bishops proven guilty will, and are, being made accountable. But is it an excuse for a media witch hunt against the Pope? Against priests? Or is it all just prepatory for another scape goat? Who would that be?

Justice was not as selective in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. Now it is.
 
Wow. Coming from Rowan Williams-- whose credibility is zero in my opinion-- this is laughable.
 
He has retracted his statement, and telephoned Bishop Martin to apologize.

And the Church of Ireland ( non catholic) defended the Catholic Church today saying that the Church is the people and it’s priests.

To say that those faithful members and those faithful priests have lost credibility is just not true.

Anyway my own take on this is, the faithful priests and laity are suffering here for those that abused the innocent, but do not fall victim like it warns in Matthew.

We pray for the abused, as well as the abusers, there is no other way, and we have to forgive, Jesus said so, otherwise we will have become sayer’s of the word, and not doers.
 
Indeed all credibility is not lost, all we need to do now as Catholics is pray for our church, there is no sinless being, and hence condemning other people is not good.
Remember even God said ’ let he who has no sin be the first to throw a stone’ , but from the very eldest they left leaving the woman and Jesus, who neither condemned her, but told her to go and not to sin again,

Of course am not proud of what happened, but it does not mean that those people pointing fingers at us are not sinners, they also have sins, may be worse sins, just because their sins have not been published they pretend they are saints.

Prayer is the weapon, so that satan does not use our clergy.😉
 
I agree that Rowan should not have said it. He did aplogise the same day.

Same day apologies should become the norm. Hint hint.
JKirkLVNV said:
I don’t think the issue is one of disagreement, necessarily. I think the issue is more the source of the criticism. That Rowan Williams should criticize anyone else for pastoral ineptitude is the ontological definition of irony. In fact, I’m fairly certain that if you look up “irony” in the dicitonary, one of the definitions has to be “whenever the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury offers commentary on the pastoral failures of ANYONE”! Arch-ditherer, more like.
Click to expand...
 
It does seem that a clever bit of editing makes Rowan appear more condemnatory than it first appeared. That said, there are a number of people seeking to make capital out of it in terms of mischief-making, defence (it’s all anti-catholoicism) or sheer head stuck somewhere where nothing can be seen to be wrong.

I’d endorse Cardinal Brady’s words in that there is NO PLACE for those who abuse or corrupt the ministry and message of the Church

bit.ly/aa9EsJ
 
I agree that Rowan should not have said it.
Click to expand...
It does seem that a clever bit of editing makes Rowan appear more condemnatory
Click to expand...
You guys are on first name terms with the Archbishop of Canterbury?

I’m impressed 😃
 
Bob_Crowley said:
The reality is, whether we like it or not, it is going to take the Catholic Church a long time to live down this reputation. I’d say it’s done a great deal of damage to any hopes of church re-unification.

That the great majority of Catholics had nothing to do with it, and in most cases would have had no idea it was going on, won’t make much difference to the public mind, or the minds of Christians in other churches.

While Dr. Williams’ comments might be a bit too negative, he’s basically right. If the Lutheran or Anglican Churches had covered up paedophile priests on such a consistent scale, I wonder what we would have said about it? We’re quick enough to comment on the issue of female priests, or homosexual marriage, or homosexual bishops, but we don’t like it when others point out some home truths to us.
Click to expand...
I have certainly done my part in dissecting the recently-brought-up-but-old-church abuse scandals, but I think that Rowan Williams was out of line. He was addressing his remarks to Ireland and NO ONE has done more than the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, to address the terrible sex abuse scandals there–no one. --and Williams’ heedless remarks only hurt Abp Martin. And certainly Williams who is head of the Anglican Communion, has enough on his plate–who is *he *to rub salt into Martin’s wounds?

Williams is a scholar, (he even looks like one), and I think that he lacks diplomatic skills. He could sure use them.
 
Lex said:
It does seem that a clever bit of editing makes Rowan appear more condemnatory than it first appeared. That said, there are a number of people seeking to make capital out of it in terms of mischief-making, defence (it’s all anti-catholoicism) or sheer head stuck somewhere where nothing can be seen to be wrong.

I’d endorse Cardinal Brady’s words in that there is NO PLACE for those who abuse or corrupt the ministry and message of the Church

bit.ly/aa9EsJ
Click to expand...
I’d endorse Cardinal Brady’s words, too, especially if he stepped down.

If anyone wants to voice support for Archbishop Martin of Dublin, you can google the website of the archdiocese and send an email to the contact link there. I did this and I think it would mean something to him if he receives a lot of supportive emails from the states.
 
I am not going to fall into the trap of criticizing the Anglican leader because of what the media says he said. Sometimes they just like to stir up trouble by reporting partial truths, exaggerated truth, or misrepresented truth. All of these news stations brag about how they are first to bring you the news, yet the ABCnews.com was very slow in reporting the Anglican leader’s regret for his comment on Catholics.
 
It seems that I did hear very soon after Williams’ interview that he had called Martin up to apologize. Also, Williams did not target Martin at all in his remarks. It just seems that Williams would have wisest not remarking on the Irish crisis at all.
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
I agree that Rowan should not have said it. He did aplogise the same day.

Same day apologies should become the norm. Hint hint.
Click to expand...
I’m not the only person that has made that analysis. You need to chat with your fellow Anglicans that are disaffected by the direction your communion has taken. I’m a former Anglican myself (if an Catholic Anglican use parish were available to me, I’d attend). He MAY be a good poet, a rigorous academic, etc, but Williams is a disaster as an Archbishop, even if his orders WERE valid. We have disasters, too, ie, Rembert Weakland, for example.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I’m not the only person that has made that analysis. You need to chat with your fellow Anglicans that are disaffected by the direction your communion has taken. I’m a former Anglican myself (if an Catholic Anglican use parish were available to me, I’d attend). He MAY be a good poet, a rigorous academic, etc, but Williams is a disaster as an Archbishop, even if his orders WERE valid. We have disasters, too, ie, Rembert Weakland, for example.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that Rowan Williams is a disaster. I think that he served during a very difficult period. Anglicans aren’t required to obey without question their Archbishop of Canterbury the way that Catholics are the pope.

He actually referred to the Irish crisis in general and didn’t single out Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin. However, the Archbishop, who has taken the lead in acknowledging the depths of the Irish sex abuse scandal, has taken it upon his shoulders very much as Jesus took up his cross. I am sorry that he took Williams’ remarks personally, as they were not intended that way, as Williams prompt apology, the same day, indicates.

Martin has been passed over for cardinal in two consistories, I am sorry to say. If and when Brady steps down, maybe he’ll get his chance.
 
anode said:
I don’t think that Rowan Williams is a disaster. I think that he served during a very difficult period. Anglicans aren’t required to obey without question their Archbishop of Canterbury the way that Catholics are the pope.

He actually referred to the Irish crisis in general and didn’t single out Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin. However, the Archbishop, who has taken the lead in acknowledging the depths of the Irish sex abuse scandal, has taken it upon his shoulders very much as Jesus took up his cross. I am sorry that he took Williams’ remarks personally, as they were not intended that way, as Williams prompt apology, the same day, indicates.

Martin has been passed over for cardinal in two consistories, I am sorry to say. If and when Brady steps down, maybe he’ll get his chance.
Click to expand...
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. In this thread, no Catholic has denied (that I recall) that the Irish Church has lost credibility. As widespread as this horror is, it would be polyannish, naive, unrealistic, etc., to assert that the Church’s credibility has NOT been harmed (seperate from Her immpeccability and Her ultimate triumph as the Bride of Christ, as per His promises concerning Her), and throughout the world, not just in Ireland.

What most Catholics in this thread have asserted (and I think any reasonable person would agree with them) is their astonishment that Rowan Williams, this particular Archbishop of Canterbury, would dare to offer commentary on any other Church or ecclessial community, given the apostacy into which the Anglican Communion, at least in the West, is drifting and given his own inability to take an effective stand (he dithers, when he says something, it doesn’t really mean anything). That opinion is shared by most of the orthodox Anglicans I’ve read of who are offering opinions. I know that the position of our Pope and their “instrument of unity” (talk about dithering) is different…and I thank God that it is. Even though Thomas Cranmer was a heretic and schismatic, he had, at least, the courage of his convictions, that lead him to thrust the hand with which he signed his recantation into the fire that burned him. I don’t see the 104th Archbishop doing the same, because if he has any conviction, it’s that everybody can be made happy.
 
zab said:
I am not going to fall into the trap of criticizing the Anglican leader because of what the media says he said. Sometimes they just like to stir up trouble by reporting partial truths, exaggerated truth, or misrepresented truth.
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of truth in this statement. I think the more the secular media can get us to fight with one another, the more they rub their hands together in glee.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
The reality is, whether we like it or not, it is going to take the Catholic Church a long time to live down this reputation. I’d say it’s done a great deal of damage to any hopes of church re-unification.

That the great majority of Catholics had nothing to do with it, and in most cases would have had no idea it was going on, won’t make much difference to the public mind, or the minds of Christians in other churches.

While Dr. Williams’ comments might be a bit too negative, he’s basically right. If the Lutheran or Anglican Churches had covered up paedophile priests on such a consistent scale, I wonder what we would have said about it? We’re quick enough to comment on the issue of female priests, or homosexual marriage, or homosexual bishops, but we don’t like it when others point out some home truths to us.
Click to expand...
What makes you think they haven’t? You don’t get it. No one really cares about either of those groups in this context. Neither are the Church created by Jesus Christ and neither has 1.2M+ members…

In addition to that, the fact there will never be ordained female priests or homosexual marriages in the Church makes it an even bigger targert for the popular culture secularists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top