http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10188825.stm

 

 

Anglicans who flout the wishes of the worldwide Church should be sidelined from official doctrinal committees, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.

 

In his Pentecost letter to Anglicans worldwide, Rowan Williams says there is still "painful division" in the Church.

 

He cites the consecration of a lesbian bishop in the US, and Church leaders organising in each others' areas.

 

If his call is heeded it would be the first time such sanctions have been imposed on dissident Church members.

 

The archbishop added that dissident Anglican provinces should not take part in formal dialogues with other Churches.

Lesbian bishop

 

Some Anglicans will see the measures as the first step towards a "two-tier" Communion, with Churches who refuse to compromise on their beliefs being increasingly marginalised.

 

Earlier this month the Episcopal Church in the United States defied Rowan Williams, by ordaining an openly-lesbian bishop, Mary Glasspool.

 

At the time Dr Williams warned that the action would deepen the rift between conservative and liberal Anglicans.

 

The Anglican Communion had agreed a moratorium on such ordinations, as well as forbidding clergy from blessing same-sex unions, and banning bishops from setting up breakaway churches in other parts of the Communion.

 

Traditionalist Churches in Africa defied this when they consecrated bishops to minister to conservative Americans who were unhappy with their own church hierarchy.

 

The African bishops said they were responding to invitations from members in the United States who objected to liberal policies on homosexuality.

Important committees

 

The Archbishop of Canterbury has frequently criticised these actions in the past, but this is the first time he has proposed taking far-reaching steps to counter them.

 

Churches that defy the wishes of the communion would be excluded from full membership of important committees that decide what Anglicans believe, and their relations with other Churches.

 

The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) is particularly important.

 

Its members debate Church doctrine, essentially deciding what Anglicans believe.

 

So far, The Episcopal Church in the United States has said it has no comment on Dr Williams's proposals.

 

"Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation," Dr Williams says in his letter.

 

"It is clear that the official bodies of The Episcopal Church [in the US] have felt in conscience that they cannot go along with what has been asked of them by others, and the consecration of Canon Mary Glasspool on May 15 has been a clear sign of this.

 

"And despite attempts to clarify the situation, activity across provincial boundaries still continues."

 

Personally, I find this quite interesting because my father and mother are traditional Anglicans. The conservative Anglicans generally view the Liberals/breakaway Anglicans as trying to purposefully ordain homosexual bishops in order to defy the traditionalist order.

 

Anyway, it would be interesting to hear from our fellow Episcopalians/Anglicans concerning this matter.

I don't know what my Anglican church's stance on this. I'm not religious, but I go there because I like the vibe of friendly-ness and free cake. I don't see anything wrong with homosexual priests or vicars, we have a female vicar, I know some traditional Anglican churches go real anal about that.

 

To me, it just seems like more inter-religion arguing, nothing new.

Shamanism was easier.

I don't know what my Anglican church's stance on this. I'm not religious, but I go there because I like the vibe of friendly-ness and free cake. I don't see anything wrong with homosexual priests or vicars, we have a female vicar, I know some traditional Anglican churches go real anal about that.

 

To me, it just seems like more inter-religion arguing, nothing new.

 

My parents' church is very traditional. They don't like the notion of female vicars as well. At least they're friendly and still give free cake, though.

 

By the way, are you attending an Episcopal church in the US?

I think they should really figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin first.

I think ironically the deterioration of the Anglican churches' Communion will expand the Catholic Communion because conservative Anglican bishops will take Pope Benedict XVI up on his offer for the Anglican-Catholic ordinariates. Now all the Pope needs to do is ease up on his declaration of primal supremacy and anyone who isn't in union would be a microscopic minority.

I think ironically the deterioration of the Anglican churches' Communion will expand the Catholic Communion because conservative Anglican bishops will take Pope Benedict XVI up on his offer for the Anglican-Catholic ordinariates. Now all the Pope needs to do is ease up on his declaration of primal supremacy and anyone who isn't in union would be a microscopic minority.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church wouldn't recognize the status of Anglican bishops and priests. That's a major turnoff, even for the conservatives. Part of our diocese took up the Pope's offer, but our bishop held steadfast and stayed loyal to the Anglican Communion.

 

However, I think that if the Pope changes the Roman church's stance on clerical marriage and offers to recognize our bishops, then the Anglican Communion would not exist any longer. Anglicans are already very similar to the Catholic church as it is.

 

Oh, and there's also the issue of paedophilia among priests in the Roman Church. I doubt that our diocese/Anglican organization would want to be affiliated with that.

 

Oh, and there's also the issue of paedophilia among priests in the Roman Church. I doubt that our diocese/Anglican organization would want to be affiliated with that.

 

did you know that the rate of pedophilia in priests is lower than for almost all other groups of figures of authority? policemen, judges, teachers, counselors - they all fare worse off when you look at the statistics. the stigma of the church is why the press even bothers.

 

Oh, and there's also the issue of paedophilia among priests in the Roman Church. I doubt that our diocese/Anglican organization would want to be affiliated with that.

 

did you know that the rate of pedophilia in priests is lower than for almost all other groups of figures of authority? policemen, judges, teachers, counselors - they all fare worse off when you look at the statistics. the stigma of the church is why the press even bothers.

I'd like to see the source for that claim.

 

Even if it is true, there are several reasons why the church would receive more flak than those other groups. Chief among them: higher expectations, wrapping oneself in the mantle of "holiness", the matter of celibacy, and the deliberate coverups.

I think ironically the deterioration of the Anglican churches' Communion will expand the Catholic Communion because conservative Anglican bishops will take Pope Benedict XVI up on his offer for the Anglican-Catholic ordinariates. Now all the Pope needs to do is ease up on his declaration of primal supremacy and anyone who isn't in union would be a microscopic minority.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church wouldn't recognize the status of Anglican bishops and priests. That's a major turnoff, even for the conservatives. Part of our diocese took up the Pope's offer, but our bishop held steadfast and stayed loyal to the Anglican Communion.

 

However, I think that if the Pope changes the Roman church's stance on clerical marriage and offers to recognize our bishops, then the Anglican Communion would not exist any longer. Anglicans are already very similar to the Catholic church as it is.

 

Oh, and there's also the issue of paedophilia among priests in the Roman Church. I doubt that our diocese/Anglican organization would want to be affiliated with that.

Marriage status is only a problem for bishops, as I am part of an Eastern Catholic Church rite and our priests are allowed to marry, in fact in North America the Roman Catholic bishops tried to put a ban on our priests marriage which worked for like 2years and than they lifted it because like a third of our priests were so offended they became orthodox. Marriage is only withheld from already ordained priests under Catholic teaching. As for bishops, a priest cannot be married to be ordained a bishop in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does recognize priest ordinations if they announce their belief in all the dogma of the Church.

 

 

Oh, and there's also the issue of paedophilia among priests in the Roman Church. I doubt that our diocese/Anglican organization would want to be affiliated with that.

 

did you know that the rate of pedophilia in priests is lower than for almost all other groups of figures of authority? policemen, judges, teachers, counselors - they all fare worse off when you look at the statistics. the stigma of the church is why the press even bothers.

I'd like to see the source for that claim.

 

Even if it is true, there are several reasons why the church would receive more flak than those other groups. Chief among them: higher expectations, wrapping oneself in the mantle of "holiness", the matter of celibacy, and the deliberate coverups.

 

"According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse."

 

"Between 3 and 12 percent of psychologists have had sexual contact with their clients."

 

"The American Medical Association found in 1986 that one in four girls, and one in eight boys, are sexually abused in or out of school before the age of 18...Shakeshaft has also determined that 15 percent of all students have experienced some kind of sexual misconduct by a teacher between kindergarten and 12th grade; the behaviors range from touching to forced penetration.[xxxvi] She and Cohan also found that up to 5 percent of teachers sexually abuse children."

 

"The issue of child sexual molestation is deserving of serious scholarship. Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society...In a survey for the Wall Street Journal-NBC News, it was found that 64 percent of the public thought that Catholic priests frequently abused children."

 

Another source: http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/03/pedophile-priests.html

Another source: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/catholic-priests-abuse-children-at-same-rate-as-anyone-else/

Another source: http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/00197.html

 

 

By the way, for those who misunderstand, it isn't a "cover-up" when priests are not "de-frocked" because they're sexually abused a child, a priest can't be "de-frocked" even if they're excommunicated. If a priest goes to confession, the priest he confesses to is obligated by the seal of reconciliation not to tell anyone under any circumstances, of even torture and death, otherwise they are immediately auto-excommunicated. For a priest to get clearance to absolve a sin of child abuse of a priest [as the priest who committed it was auto-excommunicated], they have to write to a special council in the Vatican which they are not allowed to mention the name of the abuser [who might possibly report himself to the Church out of guilt] and that is how they find out. The council first of all would most likely only tell the Pope and they can't go around spreading it. It's been forgiven so they can't pursue them for something they're pardoned on, so the most logical protocol is to recall them to Rome to keep close watch on them, it isn't a reward to be prisoner of the Pope. The child abuse scandal is overblown in the media. Has the media told you of the super strict measures the Church has been taking? No? Well that's because it doesn't make an interesting story. I know first hand as the procedure really annoys me of fingerprinting and having two fingerprinted adults present with people under the age of 18. I was running a retreat myself and it was rather a hassle as I had 4 different stations and 4 different groups so i had to have 8 fingerprinted people in total and I couldn't have non-fingerprinted people unsupervised. I'm not even allowed to meet with the four people in the board of my ministry without 2 fingerprinted adults, and we're all the same age give or take a year. Is that a logical assumption that a 16yr old can sexually abuse another in the presents of 3 others?

Marriage status is only a problem for bishops, as I am part of an Eastern Catholic Church rite and our priests are allowed to marry...

I think that's great, but realize that while the Eastern Catholic Church is obviously very important to you and many others, it has little direct bearing on this discussion.

 

Another source: http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/03/pedophile-priests.html

Another source: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/catholic-priests-abuse-children-at-same-rate-as-anyone-else/

Another source: http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/00197.html

Maybe I'm just blind this morning, but I don't see the actual figures you quoted in these sources (some of which are of dubious value anyway.. what should I expect from a site called "Catholicity"?)

 

By the way, for those who misunderstand, it isn't a "cover-up" when priests are not "de-frocked" because they're sexually abused a child, a priest can't be "de-frocked" even if they're excommunicated.

It's a cover-up when child molestation victims are told "here's some money if you shut up".

 

It's a cover-up when priests with known histories of molestation are, rather than removed from positions of power, shuffled to different parishes.

 

It's a cover-up when the bishop in charge of an area with rampant molestation is, rather than disciplined, moved to a cushy job at the Vatican.

 

The child abuse scandal is overblown in the media.

Maybe because it has been *underblown* by the church for centuries.

Marriage status is only a problem for bishops, as I am part of an Eastern Catholic Church rite and our priests are allowed to marry...

I think that's great, but realize that while the Eastern Catholic Church is obviously very important to you and many others, it has little direct bearing on this discussion.

That was actually pertinent to our discussion as Serephurus said the Catholic Church would not recognizing the legitimacy of the Anglican priests and bishops, and I was stating "clerical marriage" as he put it would only effect the bishops as they would have to be provided with the same rights as the Eastern Catholic Churches (which is under papal jurisdiction) due to the Code of Cannons stating all churches must be treated with equal dignity and the celibacy of a priest is a Latin element, not a universal dogma. So yes, the Law of the Catholic Church it is extremely relevant.

 

I provided objective stats preceding the subjective articles as I know you're intelligent enough to make the inference that 1.5%(priests)<5%(teachers)<3-12%(psychologists) therefore molestation is relatively a lot lower amongst Catholic clergy than other professions. In fact rabbis have a similar percent of sexual abuse cases and you know why they aren't attacked? Because that would be "antisemitic", plus you wouldn't get much money or public attention as Jews do not have an extremely centralized head as we do.

 

As I said being Pope's prisoner is not cuchy, I had a cousin who requested to be removed from the Vatican to like 2miles away because of the environment of everyone knowing completely everything you do from the moment you wake up to sleep. That is rather good surveillance.

 

Anyway enough about molestation before this becomes a tangent, I'm sure as soon as the media finds something bad to pick on of another organization, I'm sure the more conservative Anglicans will begin to become Catholic as a greater rift between Anglicans forms over the ordination and marriage of gays.

That was actually pertinent to our discussion as Serephurus said the Catholic Church would not recognizing the legitimacy of the Anglican priests and bishops, and I was stating "clerical marriage" as he put it would only effect the bishops as they would have to be provided with the same rights as the Eastern Catholic Churches (which is under papal jurisdiction) due to the Code of Cannons stating all churches must be treated with equal dignity and the celibacy of a priest is a Latin element, not a universal dogma. So yes, the Law of the Catholic Church it is extremely relevant.

I have a feeling that when people mention reticence to be associated with the Catholic Church due to pedophilia scandals, they are referring to the RC church proper, not to the church you are a member of. So bringing that up in reference to those scandals is really a red herring.

 

I provided objective stats preceding the subjective articles as I know you're intelligent enough to make the inference that 1.5%(priests)<5%(teachers)<3-12%(psychologists) therefore molestation is relatively a lot lower amongst Catholic clergy than other professions.

I'm intelligent enough to know that stats provided without reliable sources are worthless.

 

In fact rabbis have a similar percent of sexual abuse cases

Source?

 

As I said being Pope's prisoner is not cuchy, I had a cousin who requested to be removed from the Vatican to like 2miles away because of the environment of everyone knowing completely everything you do from the moment you wake up to sleep. That is rather good surveillance.

I'm referring to Bernard Law. I highly doubt he's in a bad "environment".

That was actually pertinent to our discussion as Serephurus said the Catholic Church would not recognizing the legitimacy of the Anglican priests and bishops, and I was stating "clerical marriage" as he put it would only effect the bishops as they would have to be provided with the same rights as the Eastern Catholic Churches (which is under papal jurisdiction) due to the Code of Cannons stating all churches must be treated with equal dignity and the celibacy of a priest is a Latin element, not a universal dogma. So yes, the Law of the Catholic Church it is extremely relevant.

I have a feeling that when people mention reticence to be associated with the Catholic Church due to pedophilia scandals, they are referring to the RC church proper, not to the church you are a member of. So bringing that up in reference to those scandals is really a red herring.

It has nothing to do with the pedophilia allegations... He and I were strictly speaking in regards of clerical marriage and the legitimacy of ordination, you are completely off as it has nothing to do with the scandal. Oh and by the way, the Cannon of the Church is RC proper... I said "That was actually pertinent to our discussion as Serephurus said the Catholic Church would not recognizing the legitimacy of the Anglican priests and bishops", tell me in there where there is anything about scandal. You claim to be intelligent enough to see I didn't source something when I did use a legitimate source based on research below, but apparently you aren't intelligent enough to read what I was writing in regards to, twice.

 

And here's your source: http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

Backed by scientific research that which can be found on the bottom and don't complain about it saying catholic because the Catholics are probably the only group who would defend themselves by piecing together a report based on research rather than hateful bashing.

It has nothing to do with the pedophilia allegations... He and I were strictly speaking in regards of clerical marriage and the legitimacy of ordination, you are completely off as it has nothing to do with the scandal.

Um. Huh?

 

You first brought up your church in post #10 in response to a comment about the pedophilia scandal, saying "Marriage status is only a problem for bishops, as I am part of an Eastern Catholic Church rite and our priests are allowed to marry..." etc.

 

And here's your source: http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

Backed by scientific research that which can be found on the bottom and don't complain about it saying catholic because the Catholics are probably the only group who would defend themselves by piecing together a report based on research rather than hateful bashing.

An article from the Catholic League, which takes *some* valid stats and twists them every which way in order to further apologize for the unscrupulous, immoral, criminal behavior of the church. Very impressive. :rolleyes:

 

A good example of abuse of statistics. You said this: "I provided objective stats preceding the subjective articles as I know you're intelligent enough to make the inference that 1.5%(priests)<5%(teachers)<3-12%(psychologists) therefore molestation is relatively a lot lower amongst Catholic clergy than other professions."

 

But when we actually look at the article you referenced, here's what it says: "Between 3 and 12 percent of psychologists have had sexual contact with their clients."

 

Doesn't say they were children. In fact, given the lack of such a qualifier, it is reasonable to assume they were not -- most people who go to psychologists are adults. So your comparison is apples and oranges.

 

This is also in the report you referenced: "The report concluded that “The disturbing aspect of all research is that the rate of incidence for clergy exceeds the client-professional rate for physicians and psychologists.”"

 

You claimed that "In fact rabbis have a similar percent of sexual abuse cases". This is not borne out by the article quoted.

 

In summary: you are being dishonest, misrepresenting reality and trying to engage in an apologetic coverup. Which, uncoincidentally, is how the RC church has always dealt with this abuse issue, and why a lot of people don't want to be associated with it in any form.

I'm beginning to think that there are no objective sources on either side for the issue.

It has nothing to do with the pedophilia allegations... He and I were strictly speaking in regards of clerical marriage and the legitimacy of ordination, you are completely off as it has nothing to do with the scandal.

Um. Huh?

 

You first brought up your church in post #10 in response to a comment about the pedophilia scandal, saying "Marriage status is only a problem for bishops, as I am part of an Eastern Catholic Church rite and our priests are allowed to marry..." etc.

You are incredibly obstinate and infuriating. I brought up the Eastern Church as a validation of clerical marriages being ok. That's it. You're so annoying you somehow say I was applying it to the scandal which I clearly wasn't. I was responding directly to the clerical marriage comment with the Law of the Church by giving an example of the Eastern Churches as all added churches are Eastern rite so any additions would follow the Law of Eastern Church in terms of addition. Again, I'm speaking solely on the permitting of marriage in regards to priests. Must I write it again i was only responding to the part were Serephurus said

"If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church wouldn't recognize the status of Anglican bishops and priests. That's a major turnoff, even for the conservatives. Part of our diocese took up the Pope's offer, but our bishop held steadfast and stayed loyal to the Anglican Communion.

 

However, I think that if the Pope changes the Roman church's stance on clerical marriage and offers to recognize our bishops, then the Anglican Communion would not exist any longer. Anglicans are already very similar to the Catholic church as it is."

 

Oh and I would like to see a study that says most people who go to a psychologist are adult. You can't make claims like that without a source.

 

And to a_local_guy, I would have to say to a good degree you are correct, it is hard to register something like this based from profession especially since one can get away with child abuse for years and even until they die and to their grave.

You are incredibly obstinate and infuriating. I brought up the Eastern Church as a validation of clerical marriages being ok. That's it. You're so annoying you somehow say I was applying it to the scandal which I clearly wasn't. I was responding directly to the clerical marriage comment with the Law of the Church by giving an example of the Eastern Churches as all added churches are Eastern rite so any additions would follow the Law of Eastern Church in terms of addition.

 

You're right -- I misread one of your posts. Apologies.

I'm beginning to think that there are no objective sources on either side for the issue.

 

every source has an angle. every source has an origin, however, disregarding a source based on it's affiliation (catholic or otherwise) not on the actual content and quality of research is something completely different.

 

of course the catholic sites are the ones who want people to know that their priests aren't terrible in comparison with the rest of society, just as university websites don't post statistics on the rate of sexual misconduct by professors, or government offices don't post statistics in public schooling.

I'm beginning to think that there are no objective sources on either side for the issue.

 

every source has an angle. every source has an origin, however, disregarding a source based on it's affiliation (catholic or otherwise) not on the actual content and quality of research is something completely different.

 

of course the catholic sites are the ones who want people to know that their priests aren't terrible in comparison with the rest of society, just as university websites don't post statistics on the rate of sexual misconduct by professors, or government offices don't post statistics in public schooling.

True. I did read Fakeitormakeit's source, if I had time I'd have checked the citations yesterday, but it made sense, at the very least compared to what you see on the news.

Though for an issue like this, a source claiming that the rate is lower than other professions is bound to be accused of affiliation with the church (By those who aren't members) and a source claiming that it's higher is going to be accused of anti-Catholicism (Chances are, by Catholics).

It's just one of those issues... :lol:

 

And for the actual original topic, it's a political issue. Liberal vs. Conservative, with a different background.

I think ironically the deterioration of the Anglican churches' Communion will expand the Catholic Communion because conservative Anglican bishops will take Pope Benedict XVI up on his offer for the Anglican-Catholic ordinariates. Now all the Pope needs to do is ease up on his declaration of primal supremacy and anyone who isn't in union would be a microscopic minority.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church wouldn't recognize the status of Anglican bishops and priests. That's a major turnoff, even for the conservatives. Part of our diocese took up the Pope's offer, but our bishop held steadfast and stayed loyal to the Anglican Communion.

 

However, I think that if the Pope changes the Roman church's stance on clerical marriage and offers to recognize our bishops, then the Anglican Communion would not exist any longer. Anglicans are already very similar to the Catholic church as it is.

 

Oh, and there's also the issue of paedophilia among priests in the Roman Church. I doubt that our diocese/Anglican organization would want to be affiliated with that.

Marriage status is only a problem for bishops, as I am part of an Eastern Catholic Church rite and our priests are allowed to marry, in fact in North America the Roman Catholic bishops tried to put a ban on our priests marriage which worked for like 2years and than they lifted it because like a third of our priests were so offended they became orthodox. Marriage is only withheld from already ordained priests under Catholic teaching. As for bishops, a priest cannot be married to be ordained a bishop in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does recognize priest ordinations if they announce their belief in all the dogma of the Church.

I believe marital status is a non-issue.

There's a process for married priests of other denominations to become recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, and it involves petitioning the pope. I'm pretty sure the Roman Catholic Church would gladly have any Anglican priests, regardless of their marital status, convert to Catholicism. I think there was an open invite at one point or another, but I could be remembering wrong.

 

As a fun side note, the Pope can be any Roman Catholic male (married, unmarried, age doesn't affect eligibility). So when Benedict XVI dies, I'm a candidate for pope :mrgreen: