Who, us?
Just look at the Telegraph’s bland concealment of the nasty truth about misogynist Anglican clerics converting to Catholicism. Look at the jolly personable “we’re just a buncha nice guys” photo, look at the tactful phrasing:
The most Rev Vincent Nichols, leader of Catholics in England and Wales, ordained Andrew Burnham, former bishop of Ebbsfleet, Keith Newton, ex-bishop of Richborough, and John Broadhurst, former bishop of Fulham, as Catholic priests at a service at Westminster Cathedral in London on Saturday.
They are the first members of an Ordinariate specially set up by the Pope, for groups of Anglicans who wish to join the Roman Catholic Church while retaining aspects of their Anglican heritage.
Paras 1 and 2. It takes until para 8 for the paper to admit which “aspects of their Anglican heritage” we’re talking about – para 8 out of a 12 para piece. Lots of people read the first 2 or 3 or 4 paras of a newspaper piece without bothering to read the whole thing. If a vital bit of information is held back until para 8, the newspaper is playing games. Behold paras 7 and 8:
The ordinariate is expected to be joined by up to 50 Anglican clergy and two retired Church of England bishops.
Its formation comes after the Church of England voted last summer to press ahead with legislation to consecrate women bishops, a move opposed by Anglo-Catholic groupings within the Church.
Those ever-so-congenial laughing guys in the photo are men who want to go on keeping women out of their powerful boys’ club. And the Telegraph hopes no one will notice.
This is the flip side of why I don’t get why progessive Catholics stick around in their misogynist, corrupt, authoritarian church. Seems like Canterbury and Rome could work a swap here: the former’s reactionaries in trade for the latter’s progressives. A win for the individuals involved, who get a more congenial ecclesiastical environment; win-win for both churches (maybe, if the numbers aren’t too out of balance) who rid themselves of dissenters.
Not just clerics but quisling clerics. What an embarrassment that rather than seeking to work with Anglicans Razinger simply wants to steal clerics away (and what a gross bunch of quislings they are) like some conquering spiritual monarch.
I guess the Anglican church is best without them, but it only makes the Catholic church more intolerant and repugnant.
I don’t think this is nefarious reporting, I think it’s just lazy reporting. Journalism-by-revision-of-press-release territory, y’know? “We’ll just repeat what the subject told us, turn in the story early, and then we’ll duck out for cocktails* at 4!” Oh sure, the real story is that this is misogynist tyrants trying to bolster their ranks of loyal peons by poaching the most misogynist of the other guys’ peons… but dammit, that takes work and research and, worst of all, original content. No no no, just print the photo, change a few words around from the press release, throw a snippet from somebody else’s press release in the last couple paragraphs for “balance”, and then go home for the evening. Can you blame them? (Well, yeah, probably…)
@Eamon Knight: I’ve always puzzled over this too. Instead of trying to reform one’s own ‘club’ to fit with one’s values, why not, uh, you know, join a different club? It’s one thing when the ‘clubs’ are tied to geography, e.g. I’d love it if America was a lot more like Denmark, let’s say, but dude, I live here, and there are significant costs (financial, emotional, relational) involved in moving, and in any case, even if I could probably afford it, a lot of folks are stuck here, and it would be nice if we could reform things to make life better for them too. But last time I checked, there were Catholics in England, and liberal churches in Italy. Why don’t, you know, the bigots join the Bigot Club and the non-bigots join the Very Nice Version of Jeebus club (or even the No Jeebus Club? Gasp!) rather than screwing around with attempts to “reform” whatever crappy club they were born to?
The reason is clear, of course, once one remembers that in the context of religion, the doctrine is more “true” than right and wrong. If you are a True Believing Catholic, it doesn’t matter if there is a nice religion down the street whose values are more in line with yours; despite their better values, they don’t have that direct line to God that good Catholics do, so the only thing to do is to work to reform the inferior values of the Catholic Church into what you think they ought. And maybe these folks do some good… but for me, on a personal level, I just don’t see the point.
* Speaking of cocktails, on a side note, I must say I just discovered the Sidecar, and I am a fan… though I’ve never had a bar-made one, and I understand there are huge variations in recipes. I do 2 shots (cheap) brandy, 1 shot (real) Cointreau, strained juice from 1 lemon, and lots of crushed ice. Probably be better with decent brandy, but man, this stuff could get away from you in a hurry!
It’s not just men though. The dreadful Anne Widdecomb converted to Catholicism back in ’93 expressly because the Church of England was planning to ordain female bishops.
This is how she defended this in an interview with the New Stateman:
Makes no sense, but there you go. This is a politician, no less, explaining the secular lawss should not apply to religious institutions.
No, this is deliberately misleading. It is a deliberate attempt to put a nice shine on a very ugly story. It’s ugly from a number of perspectives, but there isn’t a single attractive thing about it, so you really have to go out of your way to hide the ugliness. First of all, it’s a deliberate attempt by Rome to pick up a few clergy, since they’re finding it difficult to get vocations. Second, it’s a deliberate ploy to bring England back into the fold. It’s the counter-reformation in action. Instead of building bridges, Benny is building a citadel. Third, it’s a way of shutting women out even further. The only reason for these guys leaving the Church of England is misogyny. There’s simply no other reason for it, so here the pope is, marching boldly backwards. Last year (or was it the year before) he rehabilitated a Holocaust denier. This year it’s women haters. Have you ever seen anything quite so ugly as the gang of men at the Vatican — there were some pictures of them in the RTE documentary on child abuse. All these old men gathered together to make rules for women. It’s creepy. And the Telegraph deliberately avoids the uglies.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa and Wayne de Villiers, Thetis. Thetis said: those 'decent' Anglicans RT @OpheliaBenson Who, us? http://dlvr.it/DlFYc […]
“Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I’ll come in again…” — Graham Chapman
What I find particularly devious is the way they try to make it all seem like business as usual by labelling it an Ordinariate. More accurate to call it an Extraordinariate, or perhaps a Peculiariate.
Probably par for the course. Religion reporting NEVER questions anything when they’re doing a piece.
As far as the incident, however… Church modernises and includes women. Most people are fine with that except for a few wackos that decide to go over to an organization still in the dark ages. Good riddance. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Well, we wern’t expecting the Telegraph, given its ownership and editorial stance, to do anything other than toe the party line were we? It reminds me of the good old days of Pravda & Izvestia……oh yeah and ‘voice of america’……
jay, well to be fair, even the BBC, deferential to religion as it is, knows how to inject obvious disapproval into its reporting of some religious incidents or actions or issues. I disagree with James, I don’t think this was lazy, I think it was carefully framed. And no I don’t expect anything different from the Telegraph, but it’s still well worth pointing out how they do it! I think.
Yeah, what if Jesus got involved with a bishop at work?
From her prospective she might not want to be giving the pope ideas, if he could figure out how to make an official pronouncement of a boy man standing in as the person of virgin mary, he might allow women christs as a trade off.
What’s with all the “formerers” in that picture caption? (I like the “Angilican” & “recieved,” too. ) Things at the Telegraph must be worse than expected.
One would think the Catholic Church wouldn’t want people wondering why the Church considers a penis and testicles necessary equipment for its priests and prelates to carry out their pastoral duties.
‘…the man in black gave me to understand that if I entertained the idea that the See of Rome was ever influenced in its actions by any feeling of gratitude I was much mistaken, assuring me that if the See of Rome in any encounter should chance to be disarmed and its adversary, from a feeling of magnanimity, should restore the sword which had been knocked out of its hand, the See of Rome always endeavoured on the first opportunity to plunge the said sword into its adversary’s bosom – conduct which the man in black seemed to think was very wise, and which he assured me had already enabled it to get rid of a great many troublesome adversaries, and would, he had no doubt, enable it to get rid of a great many more.
‘”… there is one Platitude (a High Anglican priest) (said the man in black)…he has sense enough to know , that unless a Church can make people hold their tongues when it thinks fit, it is scarcely deserving the name of a Church…
‘”… had the Church of England (said the man in black) been a persecuting Church, it would not stand in the position it stands at present; it might, with its opportunities, have spread itself over the greater part of the world. I was about to observe, that instead of practising the indolent habits of his High Church brethren, Platitude would be working for his money, preaching the proper use of fire and faggot…”‘
George Borrow, Lavengro, cap XCIV: the whole chapter makes very entertaining and pertinent reading.
Ann Widdecombe’s nonsense that Grania quoted above (#4)
That makes no sense, because it’s simply arbitrary. JC was also Jewish, Aramaic-speaking, youngish, probably poor, probably a peasant, probably uneducated. He was alive 20 centuries ago. He was a lot of things, none of which priests are required to be. Why is it only gender that is salient? Why is it impossible for a woman to stand “in persona Christi” when it’s not impossible for an English or Brazilian or Nigerian or Indian person to do so? How does Widdecombe know that gender is a criterion when nothing else is? How does anyone know that?
Mitch Benn on the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) last year when this first came up sang a fabulous song (his own) called “the pope wants vicars’ the final bit went:-
‘The pope wants vicars….
We’re after your finest
Like Thomas Aquinas
so join us today if you’re scared of vaginas,
The pope wants vicars ……………..’
I nearly wet myself when I heard it its very very funny but I can’t find it anywhere on the web or BBC. If anyone out there has a recording of it, it was broadcast in Nov ’09.
I think Ratzinger and all christian clergy are very worried as there are fewer and fewer young men coming along to replace the retiring ones so the Ratz has decided to steal other peoples. But only the really nasty, bigoted ones. Can you imagine how their wives are feeling? I’d put something in the bish’s soup if I was them.
I had a go at explaining Ann’s gibberish a while back, but in retrospect I think the true reason gender is important may be that Rice Krispies go Snap, Crackle, and Pop.
Frances, that episode of The Now Show was broadcast on 27/11/09 and I have it on my iTunes.
If you visit http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ you could PM me your email and I will send you a copy if you want.
quisquose