Richard Kew+: The Scapegoating of the Archbishop of Canterbury
June 30, 2008
I am concerned about attitudes toward this present Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems by many of those of the GAFCon persuasion to have become the scapegoat not only for his own shortcomings in this confusing crisis, but also everyone else’s. I have found myself wondering what the attitude of the GAFCon loyalists would have been if George Carey had still been the ABC — and who/what the scapegoat would have been in those particular circumstances. Scapegoating is, quite honestly, a very easy way to shrug off one’s own responsibilities for the situation.
Yes, the office of Archbishop of Canterbury does seem to have colonial overtones, but again, is the anti-colonial argument pressed because it can be used to great affect against Rowan Williams whose public persona is eminently difficult for most people to grasp (especially when the media have finished messing with his idiosyncrasy)? It needs to be asked if the office would be disdained in this particular manner if John Sentamu was Archbishop of Canterbury instead of York: I rather doubt a once-persecuted Ugandan with a huge and extrovert personality and faith would be dismissed with the scorn afforded the gentle Welsh scholar who inhabits Lambeth Palace. the rest/comments
posted by Pat Dague @ 10:36 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
With all due respect to Kew+ who was a priest for many years in my final TEC diocese, this is NOT scapegoating! +Cantuar has been AWOL from his office while the situation has spun out of control. Someday talk to +Duncan about the times when even a word of support for the Network, which was after all created at +Cantuar's suggestion, would have made a huge difference in events.
Ephraim+ and Kew+ both state "mistakes were made on both sides." One of the commentators to the essay tries to draw equivalency between border crossing and American innovations.
Both of these lines of reasoning are fallacious. There is not an equivalency between border crossing and American unilateral innovations nor between the mistakes of the reasserters and reappraisers.
And the reality is that Rowan's "leadership" has never strayed from kicking the can down the road which benefits the revisionists.
And I tire of the "He's not a pope" canard.
He has the power of invitation to Lambeth. Windsor/Dromantine stated that the Americans should withdraw until the crisis is addressed.
He has the power to call primates meetings. He did not after the clear rejection of the DeS communique by the HoB meeting.
His powers may be limited but he uses it to uniformly benefit the Americans. To dismiss this reality as "scapegoating" is to bury your head in the sand.
Post a Comment
<< Home