Cherie ‘inspired’ him, I think not since he has been atending the RC church for years with his children who are RC’s. Correct me if I am wrong but there has never been a de jure RC prime minister of England. Did Cherie inspire him to destroy the Anglican Communion through the appointment of the present ABC and did she inspire him to drive England into the ground during his tenure etc.etc…?

Oh come on. Since arriving in the Catholic church Blair has done nothing but make trouble. Saying he intended the Anglican mess that Rowan has wrought is just silly. What’s the saying, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”. I think that applies.

Considering Cherie’s public rejection of certain Catholic teachings, I’d say it wasn’t a huge leap from the CofE to Cafeteria Catholicism for ol’ Tony…

The idea that Rowan has wrought havoc within the AC is absolutely ridiculous.  Blame Blair (like Bush) for the effect on the country, but let’s lay off the name-calling of the ABC, who has been nothing but supportive and discriminately inclusive (in a good way, and in opposition to TEC).

Patience over immediate action and love over truth (for a time).

The Catholic bishops of Great Britain are a modernist lot who’ve lost a third of their ASA in the past few years.  Tony Blair’s acceptance (I’ll eschew the term “conversion” in this case) into the Catholic Church is a scandal. I’m not talking about his soul’s condition: his very public acts that undermined the teachings of the Church and damaged British society require public repudiation of those acts.

I don’t begrudge Tony Blair for becoming Catholic, and I really think the British should end the custom (I believe the law has been changed but could be wrong) on what is one of the last official vestiges of discrimination against Catholics and allow for a Catholic to be prime minister (This doesn’t include new laws that discriminate against pretty much ALL Christians recently promulgated in Britain.)

However, I feel that if Tony Blair knew of his intention to join the Catholic Church back during the choosing of the next ABC, he should have recused himself from from whatever part he played in the process.  After all, the Roman Catholics don’t consult with Anglicans in the naming of their bishops.

While I agree with the thrust of #4’s comments, I can’t honestly say that the current ABC “has been nothing but supportive and discriminately inclusive (in a good way, and in opposition to TEC)”.  I don’t think he’s fully to blame for the problem, a lot of it comes from TEC’s unilateral actions.  However, ++RW does have the ultimate responsibility for the state the Anglican Communion is in as a result of his actions and inactions. 

Near as I can tell ++RW’s strategy has been to keep everyone “at the table” regardless of the cost in hope that time would sort out the problems.  He has made statements that indicate that he clearly understands the reasserter position (his recent statement after GC2009, the now famous “Christmas Statement”), however, he has committed acts that seem to indicate his personal preference for the reappraiser position (inviting the consecrators of VGR to Lambeth, failing to call a primates meeting after New Orleans TEC House of Bishops meeting which was a clear undermining of the intent and purpose of Dar Es Salam, holding an intended to be secret “Gay Mass” in London apparently without the approval or even notification if it is to be believed of the Diocesan Bishop of London, the failure to discipline clergy in the Church of England who are violating the rule of celebacy with their domestic partners.)