Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, February 27th, 2011 | Uncategorized | 29 Comments

Has my gracious lord of Canterbury grown a spine?

Dr Rowan Williams has refused to be drawn on the issue publicly, but has broken his silence to tell MPs he is not prepared for the Coalition to tell the Church how to behave.

He told a private meeting of influential politicians that the Church of England would not bow to public pressure to allow its buildings to be used to conduct same-sex civil partnerships.

The comments are the first time he has spoken since the Coalition unveiled plans to allow religious buildings to be used to conduct homosexual partnership ceremonies.

While the Church has been bitterly divided over the role of its homosexual clergy, he said it held a clear position that marriage is between a man and a woman and would not consider changing this stance.

The tough line taken by the archbishop will frustrate liberals in the Church who have become increasingly disillusioned by his support for a conservative approach to controversial issues.

Some C of E liberals sound like they’re ready to throw in with the Episcopalians.

Although Dr Williams told MPs that the Church of England would not host same-sex unions, other senior clergy, including Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, and the Dr Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, have said this would represent discrimination.

Giles Fraser, canon chancellor at St Paul’s cathedral, criticised the Church for failing to embrace the steps to greater equality for homosexual couples.

“Gay relationships are perfectly capable of reflecting the love of God,” he said.

“Which is why the church should respond more imaginatively to the idea of same-sex blessings being celebrated in church.”

But Dr. Williams isn’t budging.

Dr Williams’s comments echo the line taken by Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, who said clergy should not be forced to conduct same-sex civil partnerships.

A Lambeth Palace spokesman said: “The Church still believes on the basis of Bible and tradition that marriage is between a man and a woman and does not accept that this needs to change.”

It’s tough to know what to make of all this.  After all, Dr. Williams has no problem at all staying in communion with Anglican provinces who are quite comfortable with marrying homosexuals.  So will this matter?

Got me.


Dale Matson
February 27, 2011

The Archbishop reminds me of the dutch boy with his….never mind.

February 27, 2011

Nope. Illusory vertebrae at best. He’s still the same Rowan we know and makes us cringe. He still cringes before the demands of everything subchristian, and by the way, won’t be in office that many years. Can’t wait for the guy or gal who replaces him.

February 27, 2011

Now it’s time for him to walk the talk. I hope he will.

February 28, 2011

It is just another ruse…AB Rowan actually supports the government edict and will find others to blame as he works hard to engineer the gay agenda behind the scenes.Then Katie will write him a check funneled through another “study group.” Same old tricks and deceit;different day.

February 28, 2011

It’s just a smoke-screen: before you know it, he’ll have finessed the collapse of the Organization of England into swallowing those abominations of “marriage” into every church in the “realm” of England – it will be done so he can escape the blame or make it too obvious!!!

That absolute good-for-nothing isn’t trustworthy even as far as you could literally throw him!!!!!

February 28, 2011

He will not succeed while the CofE is the established Church. The precedent is there in the established State Churches of Sweden and Denmark. Just apply the “equal” oppurtunity provisions to the various church statutes.

Not One Of The Regulars
February 28, 2011

> Has my gracious lord of Canterbury
> grown a spine?

If he has, it’s not in a way that you may think. I offer the possibility that he’s defending turf, not principle. If the government “forces” him to accept SSM, he’s just some functionary, however senior, rather than a “prophetic” man of God. Or something.

February 28, 2011

If anybody seriously thinks…

a) Rowan Williams is really going to stand in the way of the Liberal agenda
b) The UK Government is going to allow ANYONE to stand in the way of the gay agenda
c) The EU will allow anyone to stand in the way of the Gay agenda
d) The decedant UK population is going to support the Churches in resisting the liberal agenda…

…has not been paying attention.

This is only going to go one way just as it has only gone one way for the last 20 years or so in the UK.

Counting the months until I jump this sinking ship.

February 28, 2011

Church of England, TEC and Canada, where policy (thus doctrine) is inspired and decided in the bedroom and the bathhouse.

unreconstructed rebel
February 28, 2011

So, I am looking for a congregation of the faithful who have no interest in real property, whose interest is solely the spread of the Gospel & feeding Jesus’ sheep. Any suggestions?

Dr. Mabuse
February 28, 2011

Oh, this is just the same old vaseline he’s used to lubricate TEC’s path to dominance. He actually fully supports this depravity, the way he supports everything TEC has done. What he’s snivelling is “This isn’t the waaaaaaaay it should be done!” Just like homo-bishops, he’s tossing his curls that TEC was too impetuous, and should have waited until the primitives were pacified. This is the same thing; it’s not that churches shouldn’t have pansy festivals, it’s just that it shouldn’t be the government making the rules.

February 28, 2011

Chris, stop reading my mind. I asked myself your opening question when I read about this last night.

sybil marshall
February 28, 2011

Can’t believe those who stoop to deltaprocessing are capable of growing a spine, or anything else…

February 28, 2011

What he SAYS and what actually does and will happen are often two completely different things. “Keeping up appearances” is something the English do very well.

February 28, 2011

I’m no longer able to get very excited about anything this Archbishop says. Will he stick with it if challenged by Parliament? The CofE has already essentially accepted actively gay and gay-partnered clergy in all but name, hiding behind the fig leaf of claiming celibacy. Unless it were to become the CinE instead of the CofE I don’t see how it can evade the liberal tidal wave.

Allen Lewis
February 28, 2011

Nothing to see here. Just move along, folks!

February 28, 2011

It isn’t a spine Rowan Williams needs. He needs some other things far more than a spine…such as a conscience, conviction of sin, repentance and regeneration, spiritual eyes, ears and discernment… a mind converted and congruent with Christ and the Scriptures. He’s out of sync, not out of spine.

He stands quite firmly on a false foundation and acts with firm resolve to promote the false gospel.

February 28, 2011

But this die was cast when the Church in England pretended to “separate” from the Church Universal and go its own way. When Henry took six wives, the outcome of two men parading their civil marriage in York Minster became only another matter of social convenience.

Henry’s “sic volo” contained within itself the seeds of same-sex marriage, just as it has blossomed into the toxic flowers of female ‘ordination,’ divorce, birth control, and abortion. Oh, and denial of transsubstantiation. And the Petrine office. And I could go on…but why? The cabal that murdered St. John Fisher is still deaf as a post.

Why don’t you just admit that you do, after all, hold excess of animus against “pansies” and have done with it. Your honesty would be truly refreshing, especially after all of your foul cant about “biblical authority” which you in no wise acknowledge…at least, whenever your own jollies are at issue.

A friendly message from an episcopalian layman who is also a clandestine (and real, unlike Katie) bishop, and who means to split your pseudo-church to pieces.

The see of Canterbury has been vacant since the Reformation. Perhaps the current idiot is the Last Pretender.

February 28, 2011

Facta non verba

February 28, 2011

+++Rowan is merely saying what the Archbishop of Canterbury is supposed to be saying. I am not an Englishman, so my perception on this is probably askew, but it seems to me that he MUST publicly follow the party line. Privately, I’m sure that he is quite happy to see this happen.

My question is this: How much authority over the Church does the monarch still have? Can Elizabeth exercise any real control as Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith? If so, would she? Certainly Charles has given evidence that he is much more “progressive” regarding the Church, but I have always perceived Her Majesty to be quite traditional.

Just wondering.

Fr. Michael+

Ed the Roman
February 28, 2011


Charming of you to make so much of our case for us in the first two paragraphs, but three makes it obvious that you don’t think we’re any better.

February 28, 2011

Fr. Michael, my impression is that the British monarch has no authority. I often see people wistfully hoping she will intervene, but I don’t believe she has any way to do so. This is Elizabeth II, not I.

Ed the Roman, I don’t think any of us should give much credence to someone who describes himself as an “episcopalian layman clandestine bishop.”

February 28, 2011

“A friendly message from an episcopalian layman who is also a clandestine (and real, unlike Katie) bishop, and who means to split your pseudo-church to pieces.”

So, does that mean you are, like, an episcopus vagans planted as a sleeper agent by the Templars to bring down the Anglican Communion? What could you conceivably do that will bring down the Anglican Communion any faster than what the Archbishop of Canterbury and the PB of TEC are already doing? Or did you just mean bring down TEC rather than the whole Communion?

And if you were planning this clandestinely, isn’t telling us about it a little premature

February 28, 2011

This is a ruse to convince the Global South that he is still a conservative Anglican. He is about to make his tour to visit all the disaffected Primates who were no-shows at the last Primates meeting and he want to appear as the bulwark of Orthodoxy. He is such a charlatan. he can say no to the Coalition but Schori sits on the Primates council. Only a fool cannot see through this sham

Don Janousek
February 28, 2011

RW with a spine? Not bloody likely. Is more likely that an octopus will grow vocal chords and sing “Melancholy Baby” to an audience of oysters.

Smurf Breath
February 28, 2011

Rowan is still trying to play both sides, trying to delay the inevitable. He’s still an invertebrate masquerading as a Christian leader.

February 28, 2011

Don J, best chuckle of the day! I can just see it. Probably because Rowan has modelled the spinelesness so well for so long and been the subject of Kate’s “reasearch” discoveries in the manipulations of squid and EcUSA “squishops”. Rowan has just been the British subspecies (and I do mean SUB as in under).

st. anonymous
February 28, 2011

Williams fears an exodus of real Christians from his houses of worship should this atrocity be enforced. The way of the revisionist is subterfuge: first say “it’s just a blessing not a wedding”, then “we’re just celebrating a secular civil union inside a church”, and so on and on… This way the orthodox believers are like the unwary frog being boiled to death in a pot by slow degrees.

The secular approach on the other hand is too blatant, too non-sneaky for revisionist tastes. It will cause a stampede of the faithful to non-government-controlled churches — and more importantly, with the faithful goes all their money…

February 28, 2011

What’s really bad is that a so-called “Conservative” government may force this issue through.

Support The MCJ                        

Email the editor-in-chief                    
©2016 Christopher Johnson                                
                        Email about Website issues

Recent Comments