Skip to main content

New Religion

The surprise move by the Catholic church to welcome dissenting Anglicans, even married priests, into the fold, is disconcerting. I'd take advantage of it as I am an Anglican moving towards Rome, however the main reasons most want to switch not fight are intolerant; namely, homophobia and other small-minded positions. This sort of thing means that when Stephen Fry recently debated against the Church he was able to use the subtlety of a Dan Brown to shoot fish in a barrell. A pity, because the good that Catholicism does in Britain and the world is greater than the evils its detractors claim.

Comments

Hi Todd,

I hope you're feeling better and glad to see you back at work on Eyewear, for however long.

I was taken aback by the Pope's acceptance of married Anglican ministers into the Catholic priesthood. As I see it Rome is in fact allowing for married priests, at last! If you allow the few Anglican ministers to make the leap to Catholicism, then it's a short jump to letting future Catholic priests marry. This is only common sense and will deal with the disgrace and horror of Catholic priests molesting children, an example of which (a Bishop is involved) is currently in the news here in Canada. It will also help stop the unfortunate decline of Catholicism in North America.

As for Catholicism itself, it is so at-odds with Anglican doctrine and history that I can't see it ever being an acceptable alternative to the Anglican church for most of us Anglicans.

Homophobia is another issue and one that I personally feel is not at the base of the rejection of same sex marriage by so many Anglicans.

Best wishes,

Stephen
Amy said…
The Catholic Church has done a lot of evil over for centuries in the name of religion. They should not be trusted.
Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

Great to see you back online. We hope that you are making a steady and sustained recovery.

Best wishes from Simon & Rusty
rio11 said…
Although I do agree- in part with you have said, I do not believe that the archiac views of the Catholic hierarchy best serve a modern religion. I will agree that as a whole, there are good practices that are put out into the wide well of humanity by catholic charity and faith, however- the same can be said of most religions. I believe that has more to do with it's people than the politics.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".