Presumably you were hoping to Zoom to Walsingham to meet the "anti-gay" Lindsay Urwin
Wow, +Urwin seems an odd duck, according to what I've learned on the web this morning (I never heard of him before Fr. Heron's comment). Among other things, in his statement dancing around whether or not he is gay, he seems to make the very strange statement that it was incumbent upon bishops to be celibate!What in the world is the matter with British Anglo-Catholicism? Judging from what I see on the web, its clergy (and seminarians) seem to be obsessed with aping Roman Catholicism, right down (in some cases) to using the liturgy of the RCC in preference to that of the Church of England. Why on earth don't they just pope?
Oh, dear, such judgments about poor Walsingham and +Unwin. First in my experience there's nothing "anti gay" about the place which is a place of "full catholic privileges" for those to whom those are important.+LInsay is a sad case and remains in a difficult position as a (currently) celibate bishop who's been outed quite publicly. I don't believe he's ever made an expressly anti-gay pronouncement. Rather his acceptance of this post is a kind of exile for him.I wonder if we don't become too certain of our own personal integrity and miss the beams in our own eyes sometimes.
Urwin supported the anti-gay Diocese of San Joaquin in its seccession from ECUSA, which left as a protest against gay clergy. That is a beam in his eye
Yes, I agree it was a stupid thing to support +Schofield in that, but I imagine +Unwin - thought - he was supporting their supposed "catholic" principles rather than homophobia.
Catholic principles like choosing your own archbishop? Sorry, don't buy it.
Nor do I "buy it" but that's why I said -supposed- catholic principles. +Schofield cleverly portrayed himself as a catholic victim of "protestant" TEC.I cannot believe +Unwin thought it through. As a consequence he's now an emigré in his own land...
Post a Comment