An exclusive too far?
In a live interview this morning, I asked Ruth Gledhill of The Times to defend her paper's front page headline on Monday: "". How can the substance of the leaked document in question add up to that headline when its final paragraph reads as follows:
This present context, which adds to existing differences between our two communions, is not the appropriate time to enter the new formal stage of relationship envisaged by the bishops at Mississauga.
Clearly, Ruth Gledhill didn't write the headline -- that was the work of an overly-zealous sub-editor (though Ruth stands by the wording) -- but I am still unpersuaded that the document makes "radical proposals" for structural unity. Ruth prefers the term "organic unity", which emphasises a gradual coming together. We've seen churches working more closely together at various levels for decades; but there's a world of difference between that and a process towards unity under the authority of the Pope.
Comments
We had a catholic priest presiding over my presbyterian father's funeral, something we could not have done in the old days.
Immature people who need a father figure and beurocracy may look to human organisation but mature souls go straight to the source Our Father, who presides over all regardless of meaningless power plays.