This is one of the real problems of mixing Church and State. In Britain, it looks like it's going to get messy.
As I read somewhere, it's kind of weird that women bishops are a big deal in a church that has at it's head, a woman, ie the Queen.
Related link: Parliament has no respect for democracy. The 'people who know best' are taking over our lives
Our rulers hold democracy in contempt. In Parliament yesterday, Sir Tony Baldry announced that the new Archbishop of Canterbury would be summoned to Westminster in the coming weeks and told that MPs will not wait for a new vote on women bishops. He will be instructed to organise another vote ahead of the agreed five-year timetable. The Church of England will be expected to choose women bishops this time, and they will vote again and again until they get it right.
As I read somewhere, it's kind of weird that women bishops are a big deal in a church that has at it's head, a woman, ie the Queen.
Related link: Parliament has no respect for democracy. The 'people who know best' are taking over our lives
At the risk of asking something obvious that I've missed or asking you to bore yourself, what is your view on the division of tasks between Church and State? Should there be one?
ReplyDeleteTypical of MP's to completely miss the problem that needs addressing.
ReplyDeleteNot the lack of women bishops, but the fact that bishops sit in the House of Lords.
WRT,
ReplyDeleteI'll go with whatever the Catholic position is, which is this article on Church and State.
I do think though, that State interference in the governance of the Church is wrong. And having the Queen as the head of the Church is wrong. Unfortunately, the way Britain has been set up for a while now, there is too much of an overlap which does neither any good.
James,
I agree. Bishops ought not to be in charge of the governance of the State.
Thanks, Lucia. I've visited that site before for other ideas and it's an interesting place. This part of the news article was strange:
ReplyDelete“Look, I know nothing about the Church — other than that, in the 1980s at least, it held the best jumble sales. I don’t know the rules of the Church, or the stories, or the history. I don’t know the 2,000 years of context… But then, this week’s vote against women bishops seemed like such a clear failing of logic that you didn’t need to know the laws, stories or history, in the same way you don’t need to know the wider context of seeing someone brutally mug someone else in the street. Whatever the whys or the wherefores, it’s just always gonna be wrong.”
She talks about logic, but her argument is illogical. If you don't know the context of street violence, you can't tell what kind of violence it is. It could be a mugging or self defence. Which party would be the agressor and victim? Her argument has presupposed the Church is always going to be the agressor. To the Church's credit, they do not deny that could be the case, but they do not seek to be, either. I agree with Thomas Pascoe's argument, that:
“She makes no effort to understand the theological context or the path of doctrinal development, because it never occurs to her that her gut instinct could be wrong.”
But, if the newspaper article didn't trim the full quote for entertainment purposes, I think it is unhelpful to anyone but an informed subject of the Catholic Church. In the link you give, the Church does not enter into adversarial positions with the state as a default attitude.
The champions of Equality In All Things exist in a strange world that is philosophically impossible. There can be no equality in a static sense and even more impossibly, in a Capitalist society. Rules to maintain Equality as a norm cannot exist inside a context that seeks to eliminate norms. The push for Equality is nothing more than the same power grab any maurauding tribe would utilise. I'm getting a bit off topic.
The State surely has no business telling the Church who may be a leader or not - under the rules of State. It's an obvious hypocrisy and with no higher authority than themselves to measure, no way to shift the discussion without crushing more State rules.
The Church's jurisdiction - as supplied in your link - has greater range and will clearly continue to be the subject of ongoing public arguments. At a low level, the Church would be accused of hypocrisy by State subjects, but it is far a more complicated discussion than that and people who don't want that discussion will use the same analogy as Ms. Moran did. That's why I think it is important for people like Thomas Pascoe to speak to more than just the converted.
WRT,
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I agree with what you've said.
Though, I would add that the push for Equality is not just a power grab, it's bigger than that. It's the current tactic of the spiritual battle that is raging around us.