Archbishop of Canterbury resigns

Orphia Nay said:
"The Anglican Diocese of North Queensland is on the brink of financial collapse as it struggles to pay millions of dollars in compensation to victims of child sexual abuse.

Bishop Keith Joseph has revealed the diocese, which covers more than a third of Queensland, needs to find about $8 million to pay its victims.

The diocese is now preparing a Supreme Court application to formally restructure so it can sell assets to pay the compensation."

www.abc.net.au

Church on brink of financial collapse following child sexual abuse claims

The Anglican Diocese of North Queensland is on the brink of financial collapse as it struggles to pay millions in compensation to victims of historic child sexual abuse.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Sell the land and anything else. Empty the pension funds. Maybe make congregants liable?
 
catsmate said:
Sell the land and anything else. Empty the pension funds. Maybe make congregants liable?
Click to expand...
I don't think the congregants should be liable. But I am entirely in favor of the Church itself covering the costs, up to and including its destructive bankruptcy. We can be happy that the Church has over the centuries provided cultural artifacts and art and even some of the values we live by, but wealth is not necessary, and times change. Of course I was brought up in that old protestant Congregational tradition where a church is the people in it, and I think anything that pretends to be a Christian church should be able to do its business in a garage or a park when the weather permits. If the people want to enrich it and give it a building and gold chalices and stuff, let them, but it doesn't convey a right to keep them when they can't afford them.

Any god worth its salt ought to care more about whether you bugger choirboys than whether you have enough golden ornaments in your nave.
 
catsmate said:
The new Archbishop has been found.
zooterkin

Merged Thread 'Call the midwife - first woman head of Church of England'

www.theguardian.com

Sarah Mullally is named as first female archbishop of Canterbury

Former chief nursing officer for England will legally assume role at Canterbury Cathedral ceremony in January
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

First woman to be Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Anglican congregation.
Click to expand...
That's it. The end times are nigh. *searches sky anxiously for monsters with multiple heads*
 
Reformed Offlian said:
That's it. The end times are nigh. *searches sky anxiously for monsters with multiple heads*
Click to expand...
I'll have to ask my Anglican minister friend what he thinks about this. As he seems to believe that members of the United Church of Canada are not True Christians, he may have a problem

Schism in the Church to follow?
 
What a completely weird thing is religion and religious belief. On one hand it's a good thing I suppose that they've gone easy on the misogyny and got a woman to CEO them --- and not to forget that they've long, as in looooooong, had a woman Chairperson sitting ceremoniously atop the CEO. On the other hand, what the ◊◊◊◊, who takes this seriously, any of this? (Then again, over in the UK I guess people don't actually take it very seriously, so maybe it's "belief" within quotes rather than belief per se, just something people do and keep and follow and fund because it's something they've always done, without asking closely why on earth --- much like their Lords, and their Majesties, and the rest of their weird-but-quaint traditions.)


eta: So what's the deal with Anglican? Over at RCC the Pope isn't just the administrative head, he's ...well, he's voodoo, special. Are any of these two similarly voodoo/special in Anglican, either the King/Queen or the Canterbury person, or are they simply administrative heads basis their theology/doctrine?
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
eta: So what's the deal with Anglican? Over at RCC the Pope isn't just the administrative head, he's ...well, he's voodoo, special. Are any of these two similarly voodoo/special in Anglican, either the King/Queen or the Canterbury person, or are they simply administrative heads basis their theology/doctrine?
Click to expand...
No, they're not as voodoo as the Pope.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, they're not as voodoo as the Pope.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying!

So, it would seem it's just RCC, at least among the more mainstream denominations, that vests the person of its Pope, and by extension its priests as well, with supernatural dogma (beyond the general supernatural nonsense underlying the faith itself, that is).

So that, well, a woman taking over as the Canterbury Shaman does upset tradition I guess. But on the other hand it's not quite as radical, as far as foundational doctrine, as it might be if something like this somehow ended up happening with RCC, isn't it.

...But whatever, long story short, it's cool they've got a woman up there now.
 
zooterkin said:
Indeed. A lot of the Protestant Reformation was about stripping the perceived witchcraft and paganism of the Roman Catholic Church away from Christianity.
Click to expand...

But not so Anglican, right? That, as I understand it, happened for a way more mundane and practical reason than those more esoteric and abstract considerations that might apply to Protestantism more generally.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
I'll have to ask my Anglican minister friend what he thinks about this. As he seems to believe that members of the United Church of Canada are not True Christians, he may have a problem

Schism in the Church to follow?
Click to expand...
Here's a detailed analysis of the possible schism.


(More than I could ever want to know!)

:wow2: :wow2:
 
Chanakya said:
But not so Anglican, right? That, as I understand it, happened for a way more mundane and practical reason than those more esoteric and abstract considerations that might apply to Protestantism more generally.
Click to expand...
Henry VIII wanted a divorce so he said "haha, I'm Pope now!"
 
arthwollipot said:
Henry VIII wanted a divorce so he said "haha, I'm Pope now!"
Click to expand...

Again, thanks for clarifying! ...That is, I did know that, that's exactly what I'd been referring to. But then I haven't looked up any serious sources on that, it's just an impression I had basis popular sources, popular ...fiction, you know, that kind of thing. And that kind of thing is sometimes wrong, or at least not fully accurate. ...So, it seems the popular depictions got it fully right on this, cool!(y)

This thing ...I mean, all of religion is fully completely nonsensical. But some of it is ...like, so entirely ...silly, so blantantly load-of-bull, that you do wonder how on earth anyone in their right mind can take it seriously. Like LDS? Like Scientology? Like the Cargo Cults? ..........Well, as far as Anglican, while the doctrine is no less silly than Christianity as a whole, but the whole thing about some king getting horny for someone and rearranging that entire hierarchy towards that one end: and then his successors keep on getting to be Pope: and, what? The people keep on meekly visiting that silly Church of theirs and ...I mean, GAWD, it's all silly, all of it, but how can anyone keep up ...this, this Anglican thing, to worship in, knowing its entire provenance?
 
Chanakya said:
but the whole thing about some king getting horny for someone and rearranging that entire hierarchy towards that one end
Click to expand...
It wasn't so much that he was horny for someone, it's that he wanted a male heir from someone. If all he needed was to get his rocks off, well, kings didn't have much trouble with that regardless of marital status.
 
Chanakya said:
But not so Anglican, right? That, as I understand it, happened for a way more mundane and practical reason than those more esoteric and abstract considerations that might apply to Protestantism more generally.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Henry VIII wanted to annul his marriage to his wife Catherine of Aragon* because she wasn't producing the son he wanted. The then pope refused, largely because he was at the mercy of the Spaniards, a member of whose royal family Henry's wife was. There was also the issue that the royal finances weren't great, Henry being a spendthrift and the country was still recovering from the War of the Roses, and there were lots of juicy ecclesiastical estates lying around that would give him money if he controlled the church. Henry himself was a, mostly, devout catholic and his vision for an English church was a mostly catholic one, only with him as its head and English being the church language. Angpicanism eventually went protestant but it is still very catholic in many ways.

*Henry and his father had heavily pressured the previous pope to allow Henry marry Catherine because she was his brother's, Arthur's, widow, and at that time the rcc considered such a marriage brother-sister incest and disallowed it.
 
We had the new Archbishop of Canterbury in my neck of the woods last week - along with 72 other Bishops, to look at the results of a £1,000,000 renovation of a local church. Don't worry it was during school hours.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Strange, I can't find anything on the BBC or Reuters news apps about this schism.
Click to expand...
It's not really strange at all.

Most reporters are not religious, and have little to no clue about religion. They don't cover religious issues because they don't understand them and it doesn't really interest them either. Absent some scandal or some hook to tie into issues that they do care about, reporters generally just ignore religion. They aren't covering the story because they are blind to the significance of such events.

Now here's where we test for Gell-Mann amnesia: do you think that religion is the only issue that the press is blind to?
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not really strange at all.

Most reporters are not religious, and have little to no clue about religion. They don't cover religious issues because they don't understand them and it doesn't really interest them either. Absent some scandal or some hook to tie into issues that they do care about, reporters generally just ignore religion. They aren't covering the story because they are blind to the significance of such events.

Now here's where we test for Gell-Mann amnesia: do you think that religion is the only issue that the press is blind to?
Click to expand...
Spare us your theorising, the outlets I checked had plenty of articles on religion.

Here's a new one about the Anglican Church from 6 hours ago on Reuters, the first place I checked today.

Vatican visit by King Charles to show closening Anglican-Catholic ties - https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/va...-closening-anglican-catholic-ties-2025-10-17/

Meanwhile, I'd say they haven't reported on the GAFCON split because the Anglican Church probably haven't officially acknowledged the split.
 
It's less newsworthy than the appointment itself in the UK because most people wouldn't care. The Archbishop is news because of the reasons for the vacancy, and because the post has a significance wider than the church (e.g. position in House of Lords and in royal ceremonies), but over half the UK population are not at all religious, and only about 12% are Anglican. A split of other Anglican churches in other countries is barely going to register.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom