(no subject)

[fpb]

After his astonishingly stupid remarks, a campaign has been started by The Sun newspaper (owner: Rupert Murdoch) to have the Archbishop of Canterbury sacked. (I am not even sure he can be sacked, but his position can certainly be made untenable.) Since he was essentially elected by heavy public pressure from The Times newspaper (owner: Rupert Murdoch), there is a sorry kind of irony here.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Granted - which is why I tried to correct filialucis when she suggested that he had something to do with the Murdoch press building him up and then knocking him down. I am fairly sure that he did not search office, and if he had any sense he must have received it with all the pleasure that most of us would reserve for a cancer or a death in the family. The post of Archbishop of Canterbury is the most undesirable in the whole roster of ecclesial offices, being charged with the leadership of a Church and a worldwide communion without having any of the means to keep any of them in line. Nobody who knows anything about him doubts his faith or his personal goodness; there are stories of people turning a corner in the Archbishop's Palace to find him prostrate in prayer.

However, as the sad story of Pope St. Celestine V proved long ago, it is not enough to be personally holy, not even to be an inspiring preacher, to lead a church. The expression "promoted above his ability" comes to mind. Celetine, a preacher so wonderful that he electrified the whole Conclave of cardinals, proved a complete disaster as a Pope and was the only one ever to resign. Mind you, he has since been canonized, which his successor Boniface VIII will never be - and Boniface, with far less sanctity, was in his different way just as disastrous. But St.Celestine is the historical proof that it is not enough to be a Saint to be a good church leader.

What astonishes me the most, however, is that Dr.Williams is supposed to be an intellectual, and that it is intellectually, more than on any other level, that he has been guilty of the most astonising incomprehension. There is no point whatsoever in admitting some Sharia usages in English law, because even the act of admitting them would be illegitimate to coherent Muslims. The issue is the source of legitimacy and power in the law. To Christians, the source of the law is Caesar - a king, a tyrant, or an elected parliament, but at any rate a human and worldly power who can amend and change the laws. To Muslims, Sharia is strictly of divine origin, and can be interpreted but never amended by human beings. So Dr.Williams' wonderful plan for societal peace is doomed in advance, and the only issue remains whether Muslims will accept any law - even Sharia-like - approved by men?

[filialucis]

*ahem* I fear you misread me; what I meant was the newspaper first building him up and now wanting to tear him down again. In no way did I suggest that Williams himself had played any active role.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to understand.....

Is it kind of like being Pope, but without any of the authority that Pope carries?

IE, you're responsible for actions without having any power at all, even symbolic?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

He has more seniority than any other Anglican bishop, but all Anglican bishops are otherwise equal. There is no mechanism for any bishop to be disciplined, and indeed the bishops themselves have trouble keeping the more difficult of their clergy in line. The heart of the Pope's powers is in being the chief judge of the Church, the ultimate court of appeal: all controversies that are not solved at a lower level of judicature, or that do not die down of their own accord, must ultimately be solved by him. And since the Council of Sardica (352AD), he is the sole authority who can judge bishops. The Anglican schism consisted, essentially, in giving most of the Pope's powers to the King, that is, in practice, to Parliament. In the few occasions when Anglican bishops have been tried, it has been Parliament who tried them. Parliament has also undermined the Church's own courts of justice over lesser church members, by overturning decisions properly reached by Church courts for political reasons. As a result, the disciplinary structures in the Church of England are very weak indeed.

This arrangement, however, is badly outdated. The English state church is now at the centre of a worldwide communion of churches. Parliament has not only lost interest in it (parliamentary debates about the Church used once to be an entertaining staple of English politics, and as late as the 1930s could become serious matters), but would not now even dare to interfere with the concerns of a great worldwide body where its writ does not run. At the same time, thanks to the threatened schism and certain split within the worldwide communion, the demand is growing for some sort of pan-Anglican system of discipline. The time is ripe for a new worldwide settlement of Anglican matters.