Vatican fishing for disgruntled Episcopalians

At the beginning of our nation, the largest of all religious denominations was the Church of England, which changed its name to the Episcopal Church after the American Revolution.

In 1965 this denomination had 3,600,000 members.

During the ensuing 44 years, when population of the U.S. swelled to 300 million, the Episcopal Church membership, by comparison, plummeted.

Since 1965 the Episcopal Church has lost 1,557,708 members, with its latest membership count at 2,057,292.

For years, there has been no sign of stoppage of Episcopal Church membership loss, due primarily to a decision by a majority of its bishops to consecrate a self-announced homosexual who lives with (and is now "married" to) his male mate, as bishop of New Hampshire.

This in turn led to this shrinking denomination's decision to authorize the practice of same-sex matrimony.

In a Page One story headlined "Vatican fishing for disgruntled Anglicans," the Washington Post reported:

"In a remarkable bid to attract disillusioned members of the Anglican Communion [which includes the Episcopal Church], the Vatican announced Tuesday that it is establishing a special arrangement that will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while preserving their liturgy and spiritual heritage, including married priests.

"The worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes the 2.3-million-member U.S. Episcopal Church, has been racked by years of conflict over the interpretation of Scripture that has led to clashes over female clergy and, more recently, gay clergy."

Why did this daily newspaper, in a Page One story, report this error of 200,000 members? Reporters Jacqueline Salmon and William Wan should really have checked the latest Episcopal membership figures.

The London Times reported that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams "did not see this coming," and there were other reports that the Vatican's announcement caught the archbishop by surprise.

Possibly this was due in some measure to the news reported Oct. 10 by British newspapers such as the Scottish Sun.

Under the headline: "A disgrace, your grace," Sun writers Tom Dunn and Martin Phillips reported, among other things, the following:

"The archbishop of Canterbury yesterday hijacked a service honoring the sacrifice of British troops in Iraq – to spout an anti-war rant.

"The queen, 11 other Royals, and former Prime Minister Tony Blair and wife, Cherie, sat in stony silence as Dr. Rowan Williams began a 10-minute tirade in St Paul's Cathedral.

"Hundreds of stunned troops – many injured in the conflict – looked on alongside families of colleagues who died, as the archbishop questioned whether the invasion was 'the right thing to do.'

"In an astonishing breach of convention, he then accused politicians of failing to think enough about the war's human cost.

"Speaking from the pulpit of St Paul's, Dr. Williams said: 'It would be a very rash person who would feel able to say without hesitation, this was absolutely the right or the wrong thing to do, the right or the wrong place to be.

"'The conflict in Iraq will, for a long time yet, exercise the historians, the moralists, the international experts.

"'Reflecting on the years of the Iraq campaign, we cannot say that no mistakes were ever made.'

"In what appeared to be a direct attack on Mr. Blair, he went on: 'When such conflict appeared on the horizon, there were those among both policy makers and commentators who were able to talk about it without really measuring the price, the cost of justice.

"'Perhaps we have learnt something, if only that there is a time to keep silence, a time to let go of the satisfyingly overblown language that is so tempting to human beings when war is in the air.'

"Mr. Blair and Cherie were seen leaving the cathedral with faces like thunder. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and top brass appeared angry too. The service was held to mark the end of combat in Iraq last April with tributes to the 120,000 servicemen and women who fought to liberate and pacify the country in Operation Telic.

"The six-year mission left 179 Brit heroes dead. The archbishop's attack was slammed last night as 'utterly inappropriate' and a slur on the memory of the fallen. There were calls for him to resign.

"One senior officer said: 'It was wrong. None of us came here today to discuss politics. Some people will agree with his views, that's fine, but it was the wrong time to express them. The man has caused offense and should resign.'

"The president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, who came to the United Kingdom for the service, dismissed Dr. Williams' rant and heaped praise on British troops – saying: 'My words cannot convey the great debt and gratitude of the Iraqi people to those men and women who joined in the liberating of Iraq.'

"Phil Cooper, 50, whose son Private Jamie Cooper was 18 when he suffered horrific injuries in a mortar attack, said: 'No one went there to hear a political agenda – they went to honor the sacrifices of brave men and women. It was the wrong time and the wrong place.'

"Sue Smith, 48, of Staffordshire, lost her son Private Phillip Hewitt, 21, in a roadside bomb. She said: 'The archbishop should have got off his soap box. That service was to commemorate our boys and say "thank you" to their families.'

"War widow Karen Clarke, 42, of South Wales, who lost her husband Ken, 39, said: 'People don't go to those services to hear political opinions. It's to honour those who died.'"

All this begs two questions:

How could the ranking prelate of the Church of England and the 77-million Anglican Communion have so grossly misused the pulpit in homiletically disfiguring a memorial service for 179 men who lost their lives in the service to their country?
Since this Oct. 10 news report of a national event in England was almost certainly known to the Vatican, is it at all surprising – or in any way wrong – that the Vatican decided against any advanced notifying of this enormously inept archbishop of Canterbury?