the limited-access ramp
What price Christian unity?
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told The Catholic Herald: "It's not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome."
How many Anglicans would be too many? Would it be OK if they entered the Catholic Church single-file?
Cardinal Kasper, the Herald reports, looks askance at a bid by a large group of Anglicans, including 60 bishops, for "full, corporate, and sacramental union" with the Catholic Church.
Of course, as a Catholic I am happy if one person joins our Catholic Church....
[Single-file is OK, then. Good to know.]
...but I doubt such a big group is coming-- I think there are still many questions to solve first.
Questions? What sort of questions? Questions about the group's sincerity? Fine; ask away. Questions about their motives, or their understanding of what it is they're doing? Very wise. But those don't seem to be the questions that Cardinal Kasper is asking, if the Herald story is accurate.
We are on good terms with the Archbishop of Canterbury and as much as we can we are helping him to keep the Anglican community together.
In the notorious Operation Keelhaul, at the close of World War II, Allied forces delivered tens of thousands of Russians back into the hands of the Soviet Union-- knowing full well that many of them would soon be living in the gulag archipelago, if they were living at all. It was a shameful episode in our history. These poor souls had made their bid for freedom, relying on the free nations of the West to help them-- thinking, perhaps, of the Statue of Liberty, and its promise to welcome the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free"-- and the West betrayed them back into the hands of tyrants.
Now the Traditional Anglican Communion looks desperately for help from Rome, as a means of escaping ecclesiastical chaos. And perhaps more than that, as a means of saving their souls. And the answer is... not yet clear.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Paladin -
Nov. 20, 2009 12:57 PM ET USA
Having been in the seminary during the 1970’s I can attest to the homosexual subculture. It was not only present it was pervasive. To say that homosexuality is not a factor is to deny the obvious and risk repeating this crisis. You can't fail if you follow the Natural Law, that's why we have it.
Posted by: opraem -
Nov. 19, 2009 11:13 PM ET USA
look who's signing the check. the consultants will deliver the report/recommendations wanted by the guy who's paying them.
Posted by: -
Nov. 19, 2009 10:51 PM ET USA
To refine the argument: Where women are not available such as in prison or to a lesser extent boarding schools and the military otherwise heterosexual men may engage in homosexual acts. Also homosexual men (think British aristocracy) may marry and father children. So certain constraints MAY change a person's sexual behavior. The problem is that in most abuse cases there were no constraints - the perpetrator could have easily chosen a boy or a girl. This is where their explanation falls apart.
Posted by: -
Nov. 19, 2009 10:30 PM ET USA
Please read Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, first published in 1966. Be sure to read the part about male pigeons isolated from female pigeons. Those horny birds ended up doing mating dances to folded napkins. How many convicts do you think enter prison are homosexual? Testosterone is a powerful thing. As any self-respecting convict, priest or pigeon will tell you.
Posted by: -
Nov. 19, 2009 9:27 PM ET USA
The statistics may corroborate the statement that abusers did not identify themselves as gay, but the followup explanation was absurd: they compared the situation to straight men in prison having gay sex. But surely a man in prison has limited options while a priest has equal access to girls as with boys? Unless all the abusers were basketball coaches with access to the locker room?
Posted by: Hal -
Nov. 19, 2009 3:45 PM ET USA
Are you surprised the Bishops paid for and listen to this cant? I'm not. It's the divided sexuality theory that the American Psychological Association and University social scientists have been pushing for the last 20-25 years. It is an artificial construction of human sexuality completely at odds with the natural law, bu enormously popular because it absolves an individual from responsibility for or identification with sexual acts. When evaluated in the light of day, it's plainly absurd.