As Benedict XVI pointed out in his book “Jesus of Nazareth”, the
conscience of those who do not go along because ‘everyone is
doing it’ stands as an accusation against those whose idolatry
embraces notions totally contrary to Christian teaching. Those who
do not conform and knuckle under to the gay rights agenda must
be driven out.

There are many ironies in the present situation between Anglicanism and Catholicism and A. Carey does a good job outlining the principle ones. 

The situation is LESS ironic, however, when one acknowledges that comprehensiveness (that is, mutually exclusive theological positions held under one roof) is itself fundamentally a liberal position.  Anglicanism has been essentially modernist since the Elizabethan Settlement.  Anglicanism as early as 1558 ceased to claim that there is an absolute Truth.  Theological relativism is the hallmark of even the most conservative Anglican theology. 

Those who hold an absolute position on ANYTHING will eventually find themselves homeless within Anglicanism.  One can believe anything or nothing as an Anglican as long as one also holds that the opposite can be legitimately be held by another Anglican.

Catholicism still holds absolutes.  One can agree or disagree with the Church’s teachings, but one can never claim that the Church has no position or that its teachings are unclear.  Church law may flex, but Church teaching may not.

In the present round, the Catholic Church has flexed her laws to give refuge to the paltry few Anglicans who have dared to hold an absolute, in this case against WO.  In doing what the C of E refuses to do, the Catholic and English Churches have acted in accord with their fundamental natures.  In this light, all the ironies melt away.

So, if you’re on the “winning” team, “Fr. J.,” then why are you so snarky and insulting? I would think that the confidence inspired by your church having everything right would produce a much more placid, pleasant demeanor. I’m especially astonished by the cheek it takes to come to an Anglican theologian’s blog and insult all Anglican theologians thusly.

Elves, I’m sorry if my comment is out-of-line and you should of course do as you must but this person’s insults are getting tiresome.

I don’t see #2’s comment as “snarky”, I see it as stating facts.

RE: “The situation is LESS ironic, however, when one acknowledges that comprehensiveness (that is, mutually exclusive theological positions held under one roof) is itself fundamentally a liberal position.”

Well sure—but as all organizations and churches maintain “comprehensiveness” on certain issues, that’s simply an irrelevant assertion.

RE: “Those who hold an absolute position on ANYTHING will eventually find themselves homeless within Anglicanism.”

Nah—but if it makes you feel better to think so, go for it.

Teatime—just know that folks over here who comment in such a way still haven’t been able to get the Anglican bur out of their saddle.  ; > )  That’s the thing to contemplate with interest and, eventually, a shrug of one’s shoulders.

Fr J wrote:

Anglicanism as early as 1558 ceased to claim that there is an absolute Truth.

I assume this was written tongue-in-cheek? Anglicanism has always believed in absolute truth, although it is possible that some outsiders may not be aware of that fact.

On the other hand, it is quite true that some Anglicans do not believe in absolute truth, just as there are some Roman Catholics that do not believe in absolute truth. That has always been the case with every church.

Theological relativism is the hallmark of even the most conservative Anglican theology.

More jokes - is Fr J. really Ronnie Corbett using a pseudonym?

Those who hold an absolute position on ANYTHING will eventually find themselves homeless within Anglicanism.

Of course, like J. C. Ryle, Charles Simeon, C. S. Lewis, T. C. Hammond, John Stott, Peter Akinola and Peter Jensen…. Yep, that makes so much sense!

In the present round, the Catholic Church has flexed her laws to give refuge to the paltry few Anglicans who have dared to hold an absolute, in this case against WO.

Not exactly. Tens of millions of Anglicans hold to the absolute that our Lord’s commands must be obeyed. Tens of millions of Anglicans also hold that women’s ordination is contrary to the Lord’s commands. But I do agree that it is only a paltry few (three?) that want to go to Rome. Still, it is right and proper that Rome should find a place for them.

The article wrote:

Where is the harm in allowing congregations which are now at odds with the Anglican settlement to maintain access with the buildings which they themselves have maintained and cherished?

But +Broadhurst et al. have left the Anglican Communion entirely - why should they be permitted to continue to use its buildings? I sympathise with these former Anglicans, and I feel much closer to them theologically than to the liberal-leaning leadership of CofE. But the important point is that they have chosen to leave us entirely.

Many other orthodox English Anglicans have not left us. They continue the fight against liberalism from within the CofE. This includes many anglo-catholics who are not prepared to go to Rome. I am prepared to support and fight on behalf of these who have remained loyal to Anglicanism. But for John Broadhurst and his group, I will offer only my best wishes and my farewells, but nothing more. They are now Roman Catholic and they therefore concern us no more or less than any other Roman Catholics.

In the same way, I view the American Anglicans who have moved from TEC/ACiC to ACNA in a different light to John Broadhurst’s group. I support and pray for +Iker and his diocese, because they are still Anglican.

Since John Broadhurst and any who follow him are no longer Anglican in any sense, why should they be entitled to continue to use Church of England facilities?