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.
Labels:

Comments

Stephen Morrissey said…
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
Wed Oct 21, 06:43:00 pm 2009
Amy said…
The Catholic Church has done a lot of evil over for centuries in the name of religion. They should not be trusted.
Wed Oct 21, 08:21:00 pm 2009
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
Thu Oct 22, 09:52:00 am 2009
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.
Sat Oct 24, 04:10:00 pm 2009
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

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....
3 comments
Read more