Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Cardinal advocates break-up of United Kingdom

For all those who assert that His Grace is erroneously obsessed with fighting the (irrelevant) religious battles of five centuries ago, could they please explain in what sense the meddling of a Cardinal in the constitutional affairs of the United Kingdom is a purely political issue?

Once again the leader of Scotland’s Catholics has transgressed his brief (or is he fulfilling it?) by supporting the secession of Scotland from the United Kingdom. His Grace’s assertion that political objectives may constitute religious agendas got him banned from the EU Referendum blog. Dr Richard North was having none of it, so a permanent ban was duly meted out ( - the first time since that fateful day that His Grace has had his freedom restricted). It seems that elephants in rooms are sometimes invisible even to those who presume to be experts at spotting the variety.

Cardinal O’Brien referred to the visit of Pope John Paul II and to his kissing the ground on his arrival at Edinburgh airport. It was intended to remind ‘the world that Scotland is a nation among nations’, and this is consistent with his reference to declarations by previous popes in support of Scottish nationhood in the Middle Ages. He conveniently neglects the events of the 16th century when Scotland rejected the Papacy, and subsequent centuries of vigorous Protestant witness. But the Cardinal is pursuing the old Roman strategy of ‘divide and rule’. The Europe of Regions strategy is the same principle - the one by which the Holy Roman Empire divided countries into small dukedoms, principalities and kingdoms, ensuring that no civil ruler was strong enough to challenge the Pope or Emperor. The fragmentation of the United Kingdom is of course to weaken it, and it is no coincidence that the opposition to the Act of Settlement is simultaneously being organised within the Scottish Parliament, where the strategy will always be to raise an issue outside of the Edinburgh remit, in order to provoke Westminster to appeasement.

Cardinal O’Brien has repeatedly pressed the issue of the unacceptability of the ‘anti-Catholic’ provisions of the Act of Settlement, but realises that this is an area of UK competence. For him, the only solution is Scottish separation, and he therefore speaks enthusiastically of ‘the benefits independence can bring’, which will be fulfilled ‘before too long’. The Governor of the Bank of England and the Conservative Party have warned that such a development would be a backward step, and would massively impoverish the Scottish people. It is, however, no surprise that the Leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, has described the Cardinal as ‘a man of vision and stature’. His vision, however, is for the terminal undermining of the United Kingdom, and his stature is the self-obsessed one that St Andrews and Edinburgh should be equal with Westminster, for they are Rome’s cardinals in the United Kingdom, and this stubbornly Protestant nation must be adapted to conform to their pastoral principalities.


Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace,

Thank you very much for explaining your views in regard to the threat you are perceiving from the Catholic Church. Previously, it was very difficult for me to understand what you had in mind. Now, at least, I have got a clue what you are talking about. Thank you.

First, let me emphasize that it was the Catholic Church which committed the most horrendous crimes of any Christian Church.

Second, in my humble view, you should have the right to publish and discuss your opinions on the EU Referendum blog. It is a disgrace that they did not permit you to do so.

Third, the meddling of the Scottish Catholic Church in the politics of the UK is not acceptable and is rightly criticized by you.

Fourth, I also consider it very likely that popes always support Scottish nationhood because an independent state would increase the influence of the Catholic Church in Scotland.

Fifth, the Catholic Church has a long tradition of expanding its power and is very likely to continue that tradition.

So far I am able to follow His Grace's reasoning. However, I have some problems with some of your other views.

(I) In His Grace's view, the Catholic Church is plotting to establish a powerful centralized EU state and at the same time its opposite, namely to divide countries in small entities.

In regard to the former, it seems to me that the rulers of a powerful centralized state do not depend on the Pope for maintaining their power. Furthermore, unlike in Medieval times, the Pope has no army and doesn't control the media anymore. Because in Medieval times the communication channel was the pulpits in the churches but now this has been replaced by TV channels. Therefore, the Churches are now unable to activate the population against its rulers which was the basis of their former power. This role has been taken over by the journalists of the mass media. Therefore, the Catholic Church would completely depend on the mercy of the EU rulers. This interpretation is supported by the facts that the Catholic Church tried unsuccessfully to get God included into the constitution of the EU and that it is unable to prevent the accession of Turkey to the EU. Although - as you correctly observed - the "population of the EU is more than 60% Roman Catholic, which means that when His Holiness declares the EU to be a design of God, however subliminally, his words and allusions may sway almost 300 million European citizens. No other individual in the Union has such power, authority, or potential influence." The unsuccessful attempts of the Catholic Church to influence the politics of the EU lead me to conclude that even the most powerful religious leader in the Union is more or less powerless.

In regard to your opposite claim, that the Catholic Church is applying "the old Roman strategy of ‘divide and rule’, it seems to me that such a strategy might make more sense for the Catholic Church. However, Martin Luther and his reformation movement against the power of the Catholic Church was supported by the rulers of the small dukedoms, principalities and kingdoms. Therefore, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that a larger number of entities are even more difficult to control than a large centralized state.

Then, if neither a centralized nor many fragmented states are able to guarantee the power of the Catholic or any other Church, what does?

History shows that the beliefs of the population and the alliance with the rulers are essential for the influence of religions. The former is established and maintained by access to communication channels, i.e. education and media. And the latter by providing benefits to the rulers.

The Catholic Church lost its influence with its monopoly of communication, i.e. the pulpit was partly substituted by printing and reading. The new communication channel of the press substituted the Catholic dogma by other dogmata such as protestantism, enlightment and socialism.

In regard to alliances with rulers, the Popes are trying every means for being helpful to the governmental "caste" hoping to obtain some privileges in return. For example, the former Pope claimed to save Western Europe from the Soviet Union, kissed the ground wherever he went and also kissed the koran because the rulers of the EU wanted an Eurabian Empire.

My conclusion is something you might not want to hear. But let me say it anyway because it seems to be correct and often forgotten. Religion is communicated by the words of priests and words are powerless except if they are able to strongly stimulate people's emotion to act. Today, the Pope, the Catholic Church, the protestant Churches and the CoE don't stimulate anybody anymore to act. Imams and Islam do, as we are witnessing.

(II) Finally, let's - for the sake of analysis - assume the worst case scenario which you appear to fear most: the Catholic Church has been established as the leading religion of the EU Empire.

Would Catholic dominance be as dangerous for Western culture and liberties as the envisioned dominance of Islamic religion in the EU?

It seems to me, that Catholicism is the lesser problem since the Europeans have already tamed the power of Catholic Church once in the past whereas the taming of Islam appears to have been less successful in human history.

Naturally, the best situation would be - and here I completely agree with you - to keep the status quo. However, the situation is rapidely changing and to fight the relatively powerless Catholic enemy might lead to jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, at least in my humble view.

31 October 2006 at 23:51  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Oh just look at him,
tell me he isn't as queer as Christmas.
We all know Rome is a source of evil, has been for thousands of years.
Just listen to the voice of this new Pope, he sounds like an effeminate German Julian Clary.

31 October 2006 at 23:57  
Anonymous Colin said...

jumping out of the frying pan into the fire

Please permit me to add a more recent example for illustration: Today, if we want we can say "To Hell with the Pope" in the middle of St. Peter's Square in Rome without risking our life.

At the same time, a politician in Germany is threatened with death by Islamists solely because she called on immigrant women from Turkey to abandon the scarf. She is now living under police protection.

1 November 2006 at 00:29  
Anonymous Colin said...


German Julian Clary

Shush! Nobody is supposed to know.
How did you find out?

1 November 2006 at 00:32  
Anonymous Rabid Atheist said...

It's also worth remembering that the Catholic Church launched many of its invasions of England and assaults on its sovereignty from Scottish soil. The Southern English are perhaps unaware of this because the doughty Northerners always beat them back before they got that far. If Scotland secedes it will become a Catholic principality whether the the inhabitants want it or not, and the English will start having to watch their backs again.

1 November 2006 at 01:13  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I thought the issue was that Catholics were gathered around Glasgow since they arrived post-1846 from Ireland to work in Paisley's textile mills.

That Catholics had usually voted Labour but that Labour is so PC that the Church of Rome in Scotland is getting irritated - that the SNP is a Protestant Party with little Catholic support - and so the Cardinal is opening the gates for Labour voters to move elsewhere.

The chances of Scotland being independent are about the same as for Yorkshire unfortunately.........it would be preferable to cut off London from the rest of the country and let the rest of us get on with real lives, but London cannot let go for fear of being revealed as a pretentious little bubbleworld driven by PR, Finance, Advertising & Propaganda, and little else

1 November 2006 at 06:38  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Colin, the Catholic Church has been 'plotting' for centuries and interfering in secular politics overtly and covertly since its foundation. In Ulster, it isn't concealed at all. I guess you can't see it much where you live, but when you say that previously you didn't see where Cranmer was coming from on this, it must be because you've never experienced it. When you live in it and with it every day, and it's talked about every day, and politicians don't avoid the subject, as Cranmer says, it's staring you in the face.

1 November 2006 at 10:58  
Anonymous Bob said...

Ulster Man - can't the same be said of Protestant Churches in Northern Ireland. Two of the MP's from Northern Ireland are Protestant clergy. Interference in secular politic seems to be a two way street.

1 November 2006 at 11:24  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Agreed. I could have wordrd it better. Religion and politics are almost the same thing, and leaders of one become/are leaders of the other. Cranmer's post was on the Cardinal of Scotland. I haven't heard the Archbishop of Canterbury arguing for an English parliament.

1 November 2006 at 13:27  
Anonymous Bob said...

The Archbishop of Canterbury has not called for the establishment of a parliament for England, but prior to his becoming Ab. of Canterbury he did declare that plans to invade Iraq were immoral and illegeal (Daily Telegraph 13th July 2002). He has defended faith schools (BBC 29th October 2006). He condemned Israel for attcking Lebanon (The Times 19th July 2006). So it could be argued that he has meddled in Britain's foreign and education policies.

1 November 2006 at 14:15  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Dear Mr Bob,

Welcome to His Grace's august blog.

Mr Ulsterman has a particular hermeneutic perspective, possibly limited by experience, but the whole purpose of this blog is to acknowledge and examine the fusion that exists between religion and politics. Most who commune with His Grace perceive this to be a reality; those who do not must depart to the EU Referendum blog, whence His Grace is exiled.

His Grace agrees, however, with your points. Perhaps the difference is in the constitutional position of the two churches, and the conflicting claims of the one over and above the other.

1 November 2006 at 14:41  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Thanks, Cranmer, I've been called a lot of things in my life, but 'hermeneutically limted' is a new one. I'll file it. But so are you... Aren't we all?

1 November 2006 at 14:48  
Anonymous Bob said...

Thank you Lord Cranmer for your welcome. Might I suggest that perhaps there is also in how the different churches perceive themselves. I may be quite wrong, and am open to correction, but in general terms I think that Protestant churches tend to view faith as a private matter between the individual and God. Roman Catholics tend to view faith as a communal matter - they are part of an RC faith community, so to speak, rather than individuals communing with God. This then would affect how each church sees itself in political terms. Apologies if I'm in error.

Also I agree with your point - the RC bishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh has no consitutional standing, whereas the Archbishop of Canterbury has.

1 November 2006 at 15:03  
Anonymous Voyager said...

We should not forget that His Grace was raised a Roman Catholic and until aged 44 followed that credo.........weren't you also married Your Grace ?

I have no such experiences of adherence or apostasy within the Church of Rome, and I note that the current Archbishop of Canterbury did harbour affinities in that direction and founded Affirming Catholicism with his friend Jeffrey John, now Dean of St Albans thanks to Anthony C.L. Blair

Whatever the position of the purple-robed chap in Scotland, he represents a minority faith of dislocated Irishmen who have settled in the land of the Picts some of whom chose to live in Ireland at England's request.

I doubt the Church of Rome will ever develop the stranglehold on Scotland it managed in Eire, and Socialism on English Money is too dear to Scottish skinflint hearts to be lost in a streak of independent self-determination. Scotland is like a shrewish wife that always threatens to leave a browbeaten husband.

1 November 2006 at 16:49  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I apologise Your Grace - your second wife Margarete whom you met in Nuremberg was the one who helped you with your vow of celibacy by remaining secret

Your first one, Joan, daughter of the tavern landlady, your student bride died in childbirth.

Do tell how you manage to keep a wife secret

1 November 2006 at 16:53  
Anonymous Colin said...

Ulster Man saíd

"Colin, the Catholic Church has been 'plotting' for centuries and interfering in secular politics overtly and covertly since its foundation."

I don't have any doubts about this at all.

"I guess you can't see it much where you live" Presently, I am living in Germany which suffered tremendeously because of the Thirty Years' War organized by the Catholic Church against Protestants. According to the History Learning Site, "The accepted figures are that urban areas experienced a 33% population loss while rural areas experienced a 40% loss." However, the Catholic Church doesn't feel responsible. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "the fundamental cause was the internal decay of the empire from 1555".

"but when you say that previously you didn't see where Cranmer was coming from on this, it must be because you've never experienced it."

This is probably correct. The devastations caused by the "Thirty Years' War" resulted in a peaceful coexistence. Catholics and protestants realized that both sides will lose if they would continue to fight. That's a very common view in this country.

"When you live in it and with it every day, and it's talked about every day, and politicians don't avoid the subject, as Cranmer says, it's staring you in the face."

Ulster man, I am sorry to hear that you still have to deal with this kind of nonsense in Northern Ireland.

And I have no doubts that the Catholic Church is the most intolerant of all Christian Churches. My only point was that Christians are facing more serious problems than the power games of the Vatican. Somehow, the situation reminds me of passengers discussing which tune the band should play on the sinking Titanic.

1 November 2006 at 18:32  
Blogger dearieme said...

1) It's a rum notion that the Irish immigration into Scotland started as late as 1846.
2) They used to appoint one of the tiny number of indigenous Scots catholics as boss, so some mild fellow with a teuchter accent would allegedly represent the urban, Hibernian, catholic tribe. They've now dispensed with that.
3) "the Catholic Church launched many of its invasions of England and assaults on its sovereignty from Scottish soil": eh? Many? What are you on about?

1 November 2006 at 19:11  
Anonymous dchc said...

Colin's comment on the Thirty Years War is interesting but wrong. The bankrupt Holy Roman Empire, subsidised by Spain, tried to reassert its temporal authority over the Protestant German Principalities who were allied to Protestant Sweden bankrolled by Catholic France. The Pope supported France and the Protestant cause, hence the aphorism "Is the Pope a Catholic? No, he is most Christian." His Catholic Majesty being the the title of the King of Spain and His Christian Majesty the King of France. The Thirty Years War was the first war of nations which continued into the next century and came to a climax in the last.

1 November 2006 at 19:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It's a rum notion that the Irish immigration into Scotland started as late as 1846.

Noone said that at all....but as you know Catholicism became less widespread after 1534 and The Anglican Church was Established both sides of the Border.

I do not believe it was as safe being a Catholic until after the 1829 Emancipation and the influx post-Potato in 1846 was to service the textile mills of Paisley as much as those of Bradford

1 November 2006 at 19:41  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thank you for your comment on the origins of the Thirty Years War. However, I am not sure if the alleged "bankruptcy" of the Holy Roman Empire, which acturally consisted of several hundred states, was a necessary and sufficient cause of this war.

First, there was the counter-reformation of the Catholic Church: Two of its "key strategies were the Inquisition and censorship of prohibited books..., burning heretics and strict emphasis on Canon law."

Furthermore, the Washington University has an interesting website on The Wars of Religion: "With the exception of the English civil war, the last major war of religion was the Thirty Years War. It is fair to say, however, that this war was as much about politics as it was about religion. Germany, which was called the Holy Roman Empire and extended from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, was not a unified state, but rather a loose collection of a huge number of autonomous city-states or province-states—three hundred and sixty autonomous states to be exact. Each was a more or less sovereign state that levied taxes and tariffs, had its own armies, made its own money, and even enforced its own borders. Religious differences fueled the fires of the political and economic rivalries between these separate states. About half the states were predominantly Protestant while the other half were predominately Catholic.

The Treaty of Augsburg recognized Lutheranism, but it did not recognize Calvinism. However, Calvinism made great strides throughout these territories in the latter half of the sixteenth century. In 1559 Frederick III became the Elector of the Palatinate (north of Bavaria) and converted to Calvinism. This new Calvinist state would become a force to reckon with when it allied with England, the Netherlands, and France against the Spanish in 1609.

To the south of the Palatinate, Bavaria was unwaveringly Catholic with a powerful Jesuit presence. Just as the Palatinate was fanatical about the spread of Calvinism and Protestantism, so Bavaria was fanatical about the spread of Catholicism and the Counter-Reformation. When Frederick IV, Elector of the Palatine, formed a defensive league with England, France, and the Netherlands in 1609, Maximillian, Duke of Bavaria, formed a Catholic League.

In 1618, the relationship between these two regions erupted into war; this war would outdo all the other previous religious wars in terms of extent and destructiveness. The Thirty Years War was, perhaps, the first World War fought in Europe, for nearly every state in Europe became involved in the war in some way or another. The sheer amount of casualties and human destruction made this war the most calamitious and disastrous war of European history before the nineteenth century.

After thirty years of untiring bloodshed, the war came to an end with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The Treaty was not really an innovation; it simply reaffirmed the Treaty of Augsburg and allowed each state within the Holy Roman Empire to decide its own religion. The only important innovation of the treaty was the recognition of Calvinism."

1 November 2006 at 21:56  
Anonymous Colin said...

Latest news: A 73 year old protestant priest burned himself during church service to protest against the indifference of the church hierarchy in regard to the spread of Islam.

1 November 2006 at 23:22  
Anonymous Colin said...

Another finding on the web:

"It is in Turkey's economic interest to be part of Europe. It is also in the interest of the Muslim world that an Islamic nation such as Turkey is within the European Union, as a Trojan horse…Admitting Turkey into European Union is like an attempt to transplant a human organ into a body of another person with a different blood group, and they never have any biological compatibility.”—Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, on his website.

The quote is from here. However, the link to Gaddafi's website is dead. Does anybody know if the quote is correct?

1 November 2006 at 23:57  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The Treaty of Augsburg recognized Lutheranism

Yes but it recognised the rights of principalities to determine religious affiliation within their jurisdiction - it was therefore a political settlement giving "German" princes what they had always wanted independence from the financial demands and licensing fees from Rome................but also split German principalities btween Hapsburg and Hohenzollern

2 November 2006 at 07:15  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

We don't all read Germamn, Colin, sorry, but the story looks very interesting. Is there an English version?

2 November 2006 at 09:19  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Shame on you not reading German - a 73-year old retired priest tried to enter the Monastery built in 1505 where Luther had once resided, during a service but found the West door locked - which was unusual.

It was Reformation Day............the priest poured petrol on his head and set himself alight.

There are few Muslims in Erfurt and the discussions tend to be theoretical without any real contact to Islam..............noone can explain why he did this and why his reference to Oskar Brüsewitz a 47 -year old Protestant pastor who burned himself to death in August 1976 in protest at collaboration betwen Protestant Church and the DDR regime

2 November 2006 at 10:53  
Anonymous vikki said...

ulster man, the english version would no longer be necessary.... We have an excellent interpreter in residence.....

2 November 2006 at 11:43  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Thanks, and apologies to you all and His Grace for my ignorance.

2 November 2006 at 12:53  
Blogger CityUnslicker said...

The only conclusion that I can draw from the above is that the said Cardinal is but an eremetic hedge priest

2 November 2006 at 13:30  
Blogger dearieme said...

"The Anglican Church was Established both sides of the Border": oh no it wasn't.

2 November 2006 at 18:20  
Anonymous Colin said...

Ulster Man

Thank you for your interest in the story and Voyager thanks for the translation.

Interestingly, there is only a short report in a single newspaper about the self-burning of the priest to protest the spread of Islam while the similar case of Oskar Brüsewitz's self-burning to protest communism was widely reported by the church and the media at that time.

My conclusion is that at that time there was a resistance against the spread of communism whereas the same is not the case in regard to Islam. Politicians and journalists seem to agree that it is better not to report about events which could upset the population except when it cannot be avoided (e.g. in the case of bomb explosions). The ruling caste of the EU has made a decision about an Eurabian Union and the populace is not supposed to hinder them.

2 November 2006 at 18:34  
Anonymous Colin said...

Ulster man

We don't all read German,

apologies to you all and His Grace for my ignorance.

Never mind. German is an absolutely unimportant language. Practically, all educated Germans speak English. Why should you learn German if you can prefectly live and travel the world without it. You should be happy that English is your mother tongue. To learn German would be a waste of time, except if you were living in that boring country.

2 November 2006 at 19:51  
Anonymous Colin said...

Ulster man,

Since you are interested in the case, here my translation of the article for you.

"Fear of Islam"
After the self-burning of a priest the church exercises self-criticism

The action is shocking - and the motive of the action not less. The self-burning of a priest in Erfurt on occassion of the anniversary of the reformation leaves a perplexed parish. The bishop of the Church province of Saxony is searching for reasons for the desperate act.

Worried about the spread of Islam in Germany, a priest has burned himself on reformation's day in the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt. The 73 years old priest, who was retired since 1989, died on Wednesday afternoon in a specialized hospital from the consequences of his severe burns, said provost Elfriede Begrich.

The man had himself overflown with gasoline and set fire upon himself on Tuesday morning in a excavation pit besides the remains of the library. Thereby, the theologician called "Jesus and Oskar". This reminds the Church immediately on 1976, said the bishop of the Church province Saxony, Axel Noack. At that time, the priest Oskar Brüsewitz has overflown himself with gasoline and set fire upon himself in front of a Church in Zeitz (Saxony-Anhalt) to protest against the German Democratic Republic.

In the past three to four years, the 73 years old priest, who loved poems and poetry by Fontane and Hölderlin, had thematized again and again the position of the Church in regard to Islam, reported the provost. In a letter to her, he had urged to consider the problem more seriously.

In a farewell letter to his wife, he asked pardon for his action. At first, the police talked about personal motives for the suicide. The 73 years old was a priest for many years in the destrict of Windischholzhausen in Erfurt. "He was a very active person. Until 14 days ago, he acted as a substitute in Church services", said Begrich.

The motivation for the self-burning doesn't make things easier but more complicated instead, said Noack. "The tragedy remains." He is hoping, that there will be no disturbance concerning the question how Christians see Islam. "The issue of Islam is still discussed among us in the East", said Noack. There are only few Muslim dialogue partners, real meetings are rather the exception. "We are dealing a lot with it in theory." But a priest should be able to theologically ratiocinate the issue. At the same time, the bishop admitted failures of the Churches in its interaction with other religions and cultures. Especially in the East, "the practical cooperation of the everyday life does not exist". The bishop cautioned against a "clash of civilizations". Peacefulness and nonviolence is necessary for the cooperation of cultures and religions. A clear commitment of Muslims to nonviolence is part of it.

The self-burning happened during a Church service. In the protestant monastry, which Luther joined in 1505 as a monk, an endowment festival was celebrated with many visitors for the anniversary of the reformation. The 73 year old, who didn't carry any papers with him, had at first deposited his car keys at the reception, said the curator of the monastry, Lothar Schmelz. It cannot be excluded that the priest wanted to attend the Church service.

Since the door at the Western entrance was exceptionally closed, he transcend a fence to get into the excavation pit. Witnesses reported that he poured gasoline from a small can over his head. Employees of the monastry tried to extinguish the flames.

In the monastry, nothing will be as before after this "terrible thing", said Schmelz. The employees and sisters are shocked and bewildered. However, the monastry will also not close the doors of the Church.

dpa 01.11.2006

2 November 2006 at 21:38  
Anonymous Colin said...

Paul Belien has now also a posting about the self-burning and some interesting comments.

2 November 2006 at 21:53  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Colin,

His Grace is immeasurably impressed by your gracious act of generosity toward Mr Ulster Man, and he trusts the translation will assist his linguistic development. Is it not joyous when communicants assist one another with such acts of agape!

Personally, His Grace accords with your views that German is an utterly unimportant language, and indeed quite ugly.

Mr Voyager,

His Grace has access to all ISP addresses, and is increasingly conversant with the nuances of 21st-century technology. He wishes to inform you, therefore, that all enquiries into his private life shall remain unanswered, since his private life is as private as your own identity.

2 November 2006 at 22:01  
Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace's,

kindness is an immeasurable joy to me as a dedicated Anglophil and His Grace's most devout and subservient admirer.

Furthermore, His Grace's extraordinary peacefulness, surprising insights in and unlimited tolerance towards other cultures and faiths has converted me from unenlightened atheism to a hopeful follower of the CoE. Please permit me to express my profound gratitude to you for changing my previously primitive views about religious matters.

2 November 2006 at 23:11  
Anonymous vikki said...

Colin, welcome to the apostate Church!

4 November 2006 at 10:54  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

I'm not at all religious. I found my way here through your comments over at Guido's place, and now you have become compulsory reading ...part of my daily round.

Good stuff.

4 November 2006 at 18:47  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Dear Sir Henry,

His Grace is delighted to welcome you to his august blog, and looks forward to your intelligent and erudite contributions.

His Grace is not at all religious either...

4 November 2006 at 21:37  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

dearieme said...
"The Anglican Church was Established both sides of the Border": oh no it wasn't.
Oh yes it was. The Anglican settlement applied in all parts of the British Isles: the reformed Church of Scotland was intended as a parallel to the the C of E. The Presbyterians were not officially in charge in Scotland till 1689.

The Archdruid's founding of "Affirming Catholicism" is certainly no evidence of Roman proclivities, rather the reverse. Affirming Catholics love high-church ceremonies, while remaining free to reject the truths the ceremonies symbolize. They approve of girls in the sanctuary and boys in the bed. The name is (probably intentionally) ambiguous: they don't "affirm" Catholicism; they are "catholics"-who-affirm (rather than engage in nasty negative judgement).

7 November 2006 at 17:49  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older