History > 2008 > UK > Faith / Religions (II)
 

Catholic priest jailed

for molesting girls 30 years ago

Priest made girls strip and rubbed paint on their bodies

under guise of preparing them for school plays

Monday September 29 2008 16:33 BST
Guardian.co.uk
Haroon Siddique
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk
on Monday September 29 2008.
It was last updated
at 17:13 on September 29 2008.
 

A Catholic priest whose sexual abuse of seven schoolgirls was uncovered 30 years later by two victims who met on the Friends Reunited website was today jailed for a year.

Father Peter Carr, 73, was exposed when the two women now in their 40s - one a solicitor, the other a singer - swapped online recollections about how he rubbed paint on their naked bodies before school plays.

They complained to police who found that other girls invited to join productions at the boys' school in the Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, were subjected to similar abuse.

Gloucester crown court judge Martin Picton told Carr that he had done the church "much damage".

"What you did was not minor. They [the girls] have had to face life with a sense of being degraded and humiliated," he said.

"The shows should have been the high points of their childhoods but the pleasure is forever tainted by the abuse they suffered at your hands."

Carr put on two plays - Sinbad the Sailor and Tom Thumb - that he said required the application of make-up to the girls' bodies.

During rehearsals he smeared paint over the naked girls, sometimes when they were alone when him. He has claimed that he "only wanted to put on good show".

One of the first two victims, now a 49-year-old singer and osteopath, said she had never previously told of the abuse but Carr had become a "monster in her mind".

The prosecutor, Ian Dixey, told the court three other women had come forward making identical complaints since reports of the case appeared last week.

Noel Lucas, defending, said his client's life was in ruins and the church would carry out an internal inquiry leading to further humiliation.

Carr was a member of the Salesian order, founded by Don Bosco in the 19th century to help poor young boys. The order condemned the abuse and apologised to the victims.

The woman who went on to become a singer said after the sentencing that she had not expected Carr to be jailed.

"I didn't think a prison sentence would necessarily change anything because he doesn't think he has done anything wrong," she said. "He doesn't even have an inkling of how he has affected our lives.

"I feel quite sorry for him now. If you had asked me in my 20s, I might have wanted revenge, but now I am just satisfied that he isn't going to die with everyone saying what a fantastic priest he is."

Carr, whose duties included teaching drama, was convicted last December of eight counts of indecently assaulting six different girls. He pleaded guilty last week to a seventh count after another woman came forward. The offences were committed between 1969 and 1975.

Carr, now of Battersea, south London, is under a sexual offences prevention order (Sopo) banning him from working or living with children.

Catholic priest jailed for molesting girls 30 years ago, G, 29.9.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/29/ukcrime.catholicism

Attack May Be Tied

to Book About Muhammad

September 29, 2008
The New York Times
By SARAH LYALL

LONDON — Early this month, Gibson Square publishers here announced that it would publish “The Jewel of Medina,” a novel about the early life of A’isha, one of the wives of the Prophet Muhammad. It was a bold decision: the book’s United States publisher, Ballantine Books, an imprint of Random House, had canceled its publication in August amid fears that it would offend and inflame Muslim extremists. (It has since been bought by another American publisher, Beaufort Books.)

For his part, Martin Rynja, Gibson Square’s publisher, said that it was “imperative” that the book be published. “In an open society there has to be open access to literary works, regardless of fear,” he said. “As an independent publishing company, we feel strongly that we should not be afraid of the consequences of debate.”

Early Saturday morning, Mr. Rynja’s house in North London, which doubles as Gibson Square’s headquarters, was set on fire. Three men were arrested on suspicion “of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism,” the police said.

No one was injured in the arson, in which a small fire bomb was apparently pushed through the house’s mail slot. The police were already on the scene as the result of what they described as “a preplanned intelligence-led operation,” and, helped by firefighters, broke down the door and put out the fire.

A fourth suspect, a woman, was arrested Sunday on charges of “obstructing police” after the police searched four houses in and around London.

The attack recalls the trouble surrounding the publication of “The Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie in 1988. That publication sparked violent protests around the world, forced Mr. Rushdie into hiding and led to the murder of the book’s Japanese translator.

Mr. Rynja, who is said to be under police protection, “has shown nothing but courage,” Sherry Jones, the author of “The Jewel of Medina,” said Sunday in a telephone interview from Spokane, Wash. She said she had corresponded via e-mail messages with Mr. Rynja since the incident. She said she had no indication he would drop it.

“The Jewel of Medina” is scheduled for release on Oct. 30 in Britain. It is one of 15 countries, including Spain, Germany, Italy, Brazil and Hungary, with plans to bring it out.

The book tells the story of the relationship between the Prophet Muhammad and A’isha, who married him as a child and is often described as his favorite wife. Ballantine Books bought the rights to it in a two-book deal for a reported $100,000, Ballantine had planned to publish it in mid-August.

But it scrapped those plans after being warned that the book “could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment,” Thomas Perry, deputy publisher of Random House Publishing Group, was quoted as saying by The Wall Street Journal.

The most alarming warnings apparently emanated from Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. Sent the book in advance, she determined that it was “an ugly, stupid piece of work” and “soft-core pornography,” she told The Journal.

She passed on her judgment to a colleague who edits a Muslim Web site, and word began to spread on the Internet.

But in the interview, Ms. Jones, 46, disputed Ms. Spellberg’s characterization, saying the book was “an epic love story and a story about women’s empowerment” and was neither overtly sexual nor offensive. The book, she said, “has been inappropriately and inaccurately characterized as a soft-porn book, which is the most inflammatory rhetoric anyone can use when talking about the subject matter, given the sensitivity of any religious group toward their sacred figures.”

After Ballantine canceled the book, it was picked up by Beaufort Books, a small New York company. On Sunday, its president, Eric M. Kampmann, said that “The Jewel of Medina” had already been shipped to bookstores and that publication would go ahead as scheduled.

Attack May Be Tied to Book About Muhammad, NYT, 29.9.2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/world/europe/29jewel.html

End of the Anglican crown

- 300 year bar to be lifted

Reforms would allow non-Protestant heir
and end male priority

Thursday September 25 2008
The Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor

Downing Street has drawn up plans to end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the throne. The requirement that the succession automatically pass to a male would also be reformed, making it possible for a first born daughter of Prince William to become his heir.

The proposals also include limiting the powers of the privy council, in particular its role as arbiter in disputes between Scotland or Wales and the UK government.

The plans were drafted by Chris Bryant, the MP who was charged by Gordon Brown with reviewing the constitution. They are with the prime minister's new adviser on the constitution, Wilf Stevenson.

Sources said No 10 would like the legislation to be passed quickly in a fourth term and Bryant briefed constitutional pressure groups on the plans at a private seminar in Manchester this week.

Ministers have long thought it anomalous that it is unlawful for a Catholic to be monarch but have not had the political will to risk reforming the law.

The 1688 Bill of Rights , the Act of Settlement in 1701 and Act of Union in 1707 - reinforced by the provisions of the Coronation Oath Act 1688 - effectively excluded Catholics or their spouses from the succession and provided for the Protestant succession.

Neither Catholics nor those who marry them nor those born to them out of wedlock may be in the line of succession.

The law also requires the monarch on accession to make before parliament a declaration rejecting Catholicism.

Though the Act of Settlement remains a cornerstone of the British constitution, critics have long argued about its relevance in the 21st century, saying it institutionalises religious discrimination and male primogeniture.

Eight years ago, the Guardian launched a campaign for a change in the law, supporting a legal challenge on the grounds that the Act of Settlement clashed with the Human Rights Act.

Geoffrey Robertson QC, the constitutional lawyer who has represented the paper in challenges to the constitutional restrictions, said last night: "I welcome this as two small steps towards a more rational constitution.

"The Act of Settlement determined that the crown shall descend only on Protestant heads and that anyone 'who holds communion with the church of Rome or marries a Papist' - not to mention a Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Rastafarian - is excluded by force of law.

"This arcane and archaic legislation enshrined religious intolerance in the bedrock of the British constitution. In order to hold the office of head of state you must be white Anglo-German Protestant - a descendant of Princess Sophia of Hanover - down the male line on the feudal principle of primogeniture. This is in blatant contravention of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act."

The next stage, he said, was for the government to challenge the notion of a head of state who achieved the position through inheritance.

Dozens of people have been barred from taking their place in the order of succession by the Act of Settlement.

In recent years the Earl of St Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent lost the right of succession through marriage to Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England.

In 2008 it was announced that Peter Phillips - the son of the Queen's daughter, Princess Anne - would marry his partner, Autumn Kelly. It emerged that she had been baptised a Catholic. She was quickly accepted into the Church of England before the marriage and Peter Phillips kept his place in the line of succession.

The Coronation Oath Act requires the monarch to "maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law [...] and [...] preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm and to the churches committed to their charge all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them".

Any change in legislation would, among other things, require the consent of member nations of the Commonwealth.

Constitutional experts have argued that reform of the Act of Settlement and its related statutes would set in train an inevitable momentum towards disestablishment, and disestablishing the Church of England would automatically remove the rationale for the religious provisions binding succession to the crown.

    End of the Anglican crown - 300 year bar to be lifted, G, 25.9.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/anglicanism.catholicism1

Archbishop of Canterbury goes to Lourdes

Rowan Williams

becomes first Church of England leader

to visit Catholic shrine

Wednesday September 24 2008 11:10 BST
Anil Dawar and agencies
Guardian.co.uk
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk
on Wednesday September 24 2008.
It was last updated
at 11:10 on September 24 2008.

The Archbishop of Canterbury today made the first visit of a leader of the Church of England to the Catholic shrine at Lourdes, where he held up its founding saint as an inspiration to the faithful.

Rowan Williams said the story of Bernadette Soubirous, the 19th century French peasant girl whose visions of Mary led to the founding of the shrine, provided hope for those who were attempting to spread the Christian faith.

He added that the experience of coming to a holy place "soaked in the hopes and prayers of millions" could help people grasp the "deep and mysterious" joy of God.

The shrine, in south-west France, is a magnet for Roman Catholics from across the globe, many of them ill or disabled, who hope to benefit from the healing qualities the local spring waters are believed to possess.

Dr Williams' pilgrimage to the holy site coincides with the 150th anniversary of the visions.

Pope Benedict XVI visited the shrine earlier this month.

The Archbishop of Canterbury aired his views on Bernadette during a sermon at the international mass at Lourdes celebrated by Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Vatican's pontifical council for the promotion of Christian unity.

"Bernardette's neighbours and teachers and parish clergy knew all they thought they needed to know about the Mother of God - and they needed to be surprised by this inarticulate, powerless, marginal teenager who had leapt up in the joy of recognition to meet Mary as her mother, her sister, bearer of her Lord and Redeemer," he said.

He added: "Our prayer here must be that, renewed and surprised in this holy place, we may be given the overshadowing strength of the Spirit to carry Jesus wherever we go, in the hope that joy will leap from heart to heart in all our human encounters. And that we may also be given courage to look and listen for that joy in our own depths when the clarity of the good news seems far away and the sky is cloudy."

    Rowan Williams becomes first Church of England leader to visit Catholic shrine, G, 24.9.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/24/anglicanism.catholicism

3.15pm BST

Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion

of 'spiritual Alzheimer's'

Wednesday July 23, 2008
Guardian.co.uk
Riazat Butt
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk
on Wednesday July 23 2008.
It was last updated
at 15:55 on July 23 2008.

A Vatican official last night described the turmoil in the Anglican Communion as "spiritual Alzheimer's" and "ecclesial Parkinson's".

The damning verdict came from Cardinal Ivan Dias, prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, who is the most senior Catholic delegate invited to the Lambeth Conference - the once-a-decade gathering of the world's Anglican bishops.

In his address, Dias was careful not to single out the Anglican church, which has been afflicted by divisions since the consecration of a gay bishop in 2003. Instead he referred to "Christian communities".

However, his unequivocal language laid bare his disapproval of the chaos sweeping through the world's third biggest Christian denomination. He said: "When we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer's.

"When we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any coordination with the head of or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's."

Dias is highly regarded in Rome and was one of the cardinals considered papabile - worthy of being elected pope - at the 2005 conclave that eventually selected Benedict XVI. His speech is the latest in a series of criticisms from Rome about the liberal drift of the Anglican church.

Earlier this month, the Vatican expressed regret that the Church of England's General Synod voted to proceed with the ordination of women bishops, while on the eve of the conference the second in command at the Holy See, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, warned that the crises gripping Anglicanism posed a "further and grave challenge" to the relationship between the two denominations.

Dias told bishops the battle to bring Christ to the world must be placed in the "wider context of spiritual combat" with Satan. "If this context is ignored in favour of a myopic world-vision, Christ's salvation will be conveniently dismissed as irrelevant."

This "spiritual warfare" had continued since the fall of Adam, raging "aided and abetted by well-known secret sects, Satanic groups and New Age movements" that revealed the "many ugly heads of the hideous anti-God monster".

These works of the devil were, he added, "secularism, which seeks to build a godless society; spiritual indifference, which is insensitive to transcendental values; and relativism, which is contrary to the permanent tenets of the Gospel".

"We Christians and bishops can ill afford to remain on the sidelines as passive spectators," he warned.

    Cardinal accuses Anglican Communion of 'spiritual Alzheimer's', G, 23.7.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/23/anglicanism.religion

The Anglican communion

has never been stranger

Itchy evangelicals, loyal liberals and holy hypocrisy
– it's just another day at the Lambeth Conference

Wednesday July 23, 2008
Guardian.co.uk
Theo Hobson
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk
on Wednesday July 23 2008.
It was last updated at 13:15 on July 23 2008.

It's not often that one can claim to be a keener Anglican than one's local bishop, but I am attending the Lambeth Conference, and Pete Broadbent, the Bishop of Willesden, is not. He is an evangelical, who sympathises with the Gafcon movement. I ask a couple of local vicars what they think of his boycott: they are not impressed. "By staying away from the conference I think the bishop undermines his own authority," says one. So in my neck of the woods this conference is hardly conducive to episcopal authority and church unity.

The main point about this conference is that it is determined not to make rules, or "resolutions". It's just a massive talking-shop. The idea is that bishops get to hear other points of view in small discussion groups modelled on the Zulu council meeting, the "indaba". The experience is meant to make the bishops glad to belong to a common body, full of cultural diversity.

I arrived in Canterbury on Sunday, as the bishops' retreat ended, and the conference proper began. There was a lot of episcopal idealism in the air, a lot of bullish upbeat rhetoric. A South African bishop told a press conference about the indabas of his native village. There was also an Australian bishop there: he didn't tell us whether indabas resembled his native tradition of drinking tinnies round the barbie. At the risk of sounding un-PC, there is a serious point here: the Anglican communion does play the exotic-primitivist card quite strongly.

Of course it makes perfect sense to avoid resolutions and just talk. This is what should have happened 10 years ago. Instead, the Lambeth Conference passed the divisive resolution condemning homosexuality. It had been on the fence on sexuality, and it fell off. Can it get back on, and resume its drift to a liberal position? Can it move away from its official discriminatory policy, and affirm the right of each province to make its own rules on sexuality? Is this what most bishops want? It's hard to say.

I arrived at the conference with a rough typology of Anglican opinion in mind. The basic division of evangelical and liberal can be sub-divided: there are evangelicals who accept Williams' leadership, and those who don't. Those who don't, of course, have mostly stayed away. And there are liberals who fully support Williams' approach, and those who worry that it's a sell-out. So both the evangelicals and the liberals can be divided into the loyalists, and those who want a new, sharper approach – let's call them the itchy.

Despite the boycott, there are plenty of itchy evangelicals here. Yesterday the Sudanese archbishop urged the Americans and Canadians to repent of their liberalism, and other African bishops are bound to give the hacks similar not-very-new news stories in the coming days. Yet the majority of evangelicals fall into the loyalist camp. They believe the conference will strengthen the communion around the existing orthodoxy.

The majority of the English bishops seem to be loyal liberals. They want a liberalisation of the communion's position on sexuality in the long run, but are wary of pressing the issue – unity comes first. What about the itchy liberals, those who aren't so philosophical about the continuing exclusion of gays, and consider the non-participation of Gene Robinson to be an offence against traditional Anglican tolerance? They hardly seem to exist. You won't find an English bishop wanting to criticise Williams for a failure of liberal leadership.

So why aren't the liberals itchier? This is the big question. Is it because they are too weak to form a protest lobby? No: the answer is more complex. The reason is that the liberals have a deep trust that the communion's position on sexuality will liberalise, given time. Of course they cannot say this – because it contravenes the existing orthodoxy, and also because it would sound colonial – "let's wait for the developing nations to catch up". In other words, they follow their leader's example: bite your tongue and wait for the Holy Spirit to enlighten the communion.

This approach dominates the tone and structure of this conference. At Sunday's eucharist, the preacher was the Right Rev Duleep de Chickera, the Bishop of Colombo. He insisted that the church must make space "for everyone and anyone, regardless of colour, gender, ability, sexual orientation. Unity in diversity is a cherished Anglican tradition – a spirituality if you like." And the following night the bishops were addressed by an American theologian called Brian McLaren, who was careful not to say too clearly that he was a liberal on the gay issue.

This is the "unofficial official" line of the conference: reform must come, but slowly-slowly, so that the cause of global evangelism is not harmed, and Anglican unity not further broken. In theory of course, the conference has no "line" at all – bishops will listen to each other, and then a "reflection" statement will be produced that affirms the existing orthodoxy. This is why so many evangelicals have boycotted: they knew that this tacit reformist agenda would be present.

So the whole event is an incredibly delicate exercise in long-distance liberalism. Luckily for Williams, there seems to be a majority view in favour of this. (The Gafcon boycott is actually a Godsend.) Yes, of course there will be evangelical demands that the Americans and Canadians are excommunicated, but these demands will spur the rest into defending unity, and praising the efforts of their leader. You have to marvel at Williams' careful cunning, which of course entails a sort of holy hypocrisy.

In his opening address, Williams referred to "this extraordinary thing called the Anglican communion". It's never been stranger than now.

    The Anglican communion has never been stranger, G, 23.7.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/23/anglicanism.religion

Pope rides to Rowan's rescue

Exclusive: Vatican shuns defectors
and backs calls for Anglican unity

Wednesday, 16 July 2008
The Independent
By James Macintyre,
Religious Affairs Correspondent


The Pope is leading an unprecedented drive by the Roman Catholic Church to prevent the fragmentation of the worldwide Anglican Communion ahead of the once-a-decade gathering of its 800 bishops, which begins today, The Independent has learnt.

In his first public comments on the Lambeth Conference, Pope Benedict XVI has warned Anglican leaders that they must find a "mature" and faithful way of avoiding "schism". On top of this the Pope has:

* Sent three cardinals to the conference in Canterbury, including one of his top aides from the Vatican, to act as personal intermediaries between the two churches;

* Let it be known that he does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church;

* Given behind-the-scenes support to the Archbishop of Canterbury's attempts to hold together the conservative and liberal wings of the Anglican Church, including at face-to-face meetings in Rome.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, faces a near-impossible task as he prepares to preside over the conference, at which bishops from around the world are gathering today for prayer and reflection. The Archbishop is hoping to keep the conference focused on substantial issues facing the church and the world, but it is overshadowed by disputes over women bishops and homosexuality.

The latter issue looms large after Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire and the church's first openly gay bishop, timed a well-publicised visit to the UK to coincide with the conference, to which he was not invited. Church of England figures are privately dismayed that the bishop is highlighting divisions over homosexual clergy and that the media seem determined to derail the conference by granting him disproportionate publicity. "He's one of 800 [bishops]," one said.

Although the Vatican was concerned by last week's General Synod vote formally paving the way for women bishops, the church leaderships in London and Rome are keen to help Dr Williams hold the Anglican Church together. The Vatican has helped Anglican leaders with the preparation of key documents in the run-up to Lambeth.

Roman Catholic insiders say there are two motives behind the Pope's concerns. A decision has been taken within the Roman Catholic hierarchy that it is in its interests for the Anglican Church to maintain unity. Despite speculation about a group of conservative bishops breaking away to the Roman church, senior Catholics say such a move would be "premature", and that they are not encouraging defections. The other reason is that the Pope has developed a strong personal relationship with Dr Williams. "They get on, they are both theologians," a source said last night.

The Pope, who arrived in Australia on Sunday for the World Youth Day gathering of young Catholics and others, publicly expressed support for Dr Williams while remaining careful not to "intervene". The Pope added that the Church needed to avoid "further schism and fractures".

"We cannot, we must not intervene in their discussions and their responsibilities we respect," he said. "The words and the message of Christ are what offer the real contribution to Lambeth and only in being faithful to the message and only in being faithful to God's words can we find a mature way, a creative way, a faithful way to find a road together."

As the Roman Catholic church reaches out to Anglican leaders, it also emerged last night that Dr Williams has invited Muslim scholars to a conference in October to discuss elements of Christianity which he admist may be "offensive" to followers of Islam. That meeting will address issues of religious freedom and religion-inspired violence.

In a demonstration of the strength of relations between the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, Pope Benedict has sent Cardinal Ivan Dias, the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, and the man who appoints all the bishops in Africa and Asia, to Lambeth from Rome.

He has also sent the theological heavyweight Cardinal Walter Casper who is said to be the "key man" in forging ever-closer relations between the churches.

Also attending will be Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, who has spent the past two days with the Pope in Australia. This is the first time that three cardinals will attend a Lambeth Conference.

Some Roman Catholics fear that unless divisions over issues including homosexuality can be healed, they will act as a forerunner to a similar battle in Rome. The Roman Church's apparent unity masks long-running splits over birth control, priesthood celibacy and the interpretation of Scripture in the modern world.

Catherine Pepinster, editor of the British Catholic newspaper The Tablet, said: "The last thing that Rome wants is a lack of unity in the Anglican Communion, however difficult it finds ecumenical relations with that Communion."

    Pope rides to Rowan's rescue, I, 16.7.2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/pope-rides-to-rowans-rescue-868695.html

Paul Vallely:

Why the Pope is not rejoicing

at the split

Wednesday, 16 July 2008
The Independent

The Pope might be expected, privately, to be rejoicing at the splits in Anglicanism. He might be expected to issue an open invitation for disgruntled Anglicans to join the Church of Rome. Instead, he is trying to bolster the beleaguered Archbishop of Canterbury.

Why is he doing this? Rome is playing a very long game here which began in 1966 when Pope Paul VI took off his ring and gave it to Dr Williams' predecessor Michael Ramsey. It was a gesture of huge symbolic importance.

In the past four decades, the relationship between Rome and Canterbury has markedly deepened. Years of talks, despite a setback on women priests, have produced joint statements on the eucharist and authority which laid the basis for healing the rift of the Reformation.

The Pope now fears this is at risk. He worries that the Church of England, which for centuries has prided itself on being both catholic and reformed, could mutate into hardline Protestantism.

He is at one with Dr Williams on this. The two leaders have a strong personal empathy and share a deep and sophisticated theology. Both emphasise the importance of reason as well as faith.

The Pope feels more in common with him than he does with theologically primitive and doctrinally ideological evangelicals who share his objections to homosexuality or women bishops. Both men see preserving unity as key and the Catholic bishops in England have warned Rome about the deeply factional nature of Anglican politics. A number of the Anglicans who moved to Rome when women were ordained brought with them a rancorous divisive mentality.

Which is why those Anglican bishops who recently approached the Vatican to ask if traditionalist C of E parishes could migrate en masse to Rome, under an Anglican liturgical rite, were sent off with a flea in their ear.

    Paul Vallely: Why the Pope is not rejoicing at the split, I, 16.7.2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-vallely-why-the-pope-is-not-rejoicing-at-the-split-868696.html

Church risks split

as Synod votes

to ordain women bishops

Tuesday, 8 July 2008
The Independent
By Jerome Taylor


The Church of England was thrown into disarray last night after its ruling body, the General Synod, rejected a series of amendments by traditionalists opposed to the ordination of women bishops. These included a proposal to create so-called "superbishops" that would have allowed clergy who object to the idea of female bishops to opt out of being administered by them.

A motion reaffirming the Church's commitment to press ahead with the consecration of women bishops was passed late last night after more than six hours of passionate and, at times, bitter debate. The bishops voted in favour of bringing forward legislation to ordain women bishops by 28 to 12. The clergy voted in favour by 124 to 44 and the Laity by 111 to 68.

Virtually all the amendments put forward by traditionalists, which could have provided them with a variety of opt-out clauses, were struck down one by one. Their defeat raises the real possibility of schism within the Church, between those in favour of women bishops and an alliance of traditionalists, Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals who vehemently oppose the idea.

Hundreds of traditionalist clergy have said they may walk out of the Anglican Communion if the Church goes ahead with the consecration of women bishops without providing legal safeguards to protect their beliefs. One bishop was even moved to tears as he berated the Synod for failing to reach a compromise that might have appealed to both camps and keep the increasingly fractured Communion unified.

The Bishop of Dover, Steven Venner, told delegates: "For the first time in my life I feel ashamed. We have talked for hours about wanting to give an honourable place for those who disagree. We have turned down almost every realistic opportunity for those opposed to flourish. And we still talk the talk of being inclusive and generous."

The rejection of the amendments came despite pleas from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who both appeared to come out in favour of creating a legal framework that would have allowed traditionalists to opt out of being administered by women bishops – either by joining a non-geographical diocese or being presided over by so-called "superbishops".

Traditionalists reacted angrily to the Synod's decision and accused liberal elements in the Church of using a "scorched earth policy" to force them out. Canon David Houlding, a senior Anglo-Catholic from London said: "It is getting worse. We are going downhill very badly."

One lay delegate even suggested some traditionalists may now consider breaking away from the Church of England to join more conservative or evangelical provinces abroad.

Gender campaigners argue that 15 Anglican provinces – including Canada, New Zealand, Cuba and Australia – have already begun consecrating women bishops and none of them have opted for any form of legal provisions that would create a "church within a church". They believe that super-bishops would create the type of two-tier system for male and females that would be nothing short of legalised discrimination.

    Church risks split as Synod votes to ordain women bishops, I, 8.7.2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/church-risks-split-as-synod-votes-to-ordain-women-bishops-862076.html

Church of England

to consider introducing 'super-bishops'

to avert crisis over women

· General Synod will discuss proposal at meeting today
· Reports of conservatives in secret talks with Vatican

The Guardian, Monday July 7, 2008
Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent
This article appeared in the Guardian
on Monday July 07 2008 on p4 of the UK news section.
It was last updated at 00:30 on July 07 2008.

A woman is consecrated as a bishop by the Episcopal church in Cuba. Photograph: Steve Creutzmann/Getty images

The Church of England will today consider a plan to create a new tier of clergy in an attempt to avert a split over women bishops.

The plan for "super-bishops", who will oversee parishes opposed to women bishops, is one of several proposals to be discussed at a meeting today of the Church of England's national assembly, the General Synod, taking place in York.

More than one thousand traditionalist clergy have threatened to leave the Church of England, with some demanding men-clergy only churches or spiritual "gender havens".

Rows over women bishops are threatening to split the church, and today's debate has been overshadowed by reports of secret summits between conservative Anglican bishops and Vatican officials.

The reports were denied yesterday by the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, a senior source in Rome has told the Guardian that as many as six Church of England bishops, who have not been named, flew to the city to discuss their fears over Anglican policy on gay ministers and female bishops.

Their meetings have led to speculation that they were exploring the possibility of defecting to Catholicism. Williams was aware of some of the meetings, the source added. Although the Vatican has previously supported Williams in his attempt to uphold wider Anglican unity, even as protests grow over gay and women clergy, the source said the Church of England's moves to ordain female bishops could change the relationship between the Church of England and the Vatican.

Aware of the turmoil engulfing the church, Williams yesterday addressed some of the concerns in his Sunday sermon at a packed York Minster.

He spoke of the "agonies and complexities" facing the church as it struggled with controversial issues, and expressed his belief that Jesus would be with all those affected. He told the congregation: "In the middle of all our discussion at synod, where would Jesus be? With those traditionalists, feeling the church is falling away from them, the landmarks have shifted? He will be with those in a very different part of the landscape - who feel things are closing in, that their position is under threat, that their liberties are being taken away by those anxious and eager to enforce their ideologies in the name of Christ.

"He will be with the gay clergy who wonder what their future is in a church so anxious and threatened about this issue." Some members of the congregation said they were moved to tears by his words and welcomed his generosity and compassion.

Williams later told the Guardian: "This is a church worth fighting for. Nobody wants to leave it, and nobody wants to lose it."

Relations between conservatives and liberals are fraught, with petitions and letters dividing opinions before tonight's vote, which will determine what accommodation, if any, should be made for people opposed to women bishops.

Traditionalists are furious that their needs are being ignored, while liberals have long argued that any special provisions would encourage discrimination by establishing a "church within a church".

The Right Rev John Packer, the bishop of Ripon and Leeds, who suggested the introduction of super-bishops, said the church had reached a point where provisions had to be made.

"I don't think compromise is a dirty word. It means promise together. We are all going to have to accept some limitations on where we would like to be.

"I have talked to one or two of my colleagues, and I'm not the only person who thinks this could be a way through."

Under his proposal, parishes opposed to women clergy could apply directly to a super-bishop for spiritual leadership, without needing the permission of their diocesan bishop. A super-bishop would be directly answerable to the Archbishop of either Canterbury or York.

The pro-women lobby would be bitterly disappointed by any concessions. One synod member, the Rev Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, has tabled an amendment to scrap a code of practice, a sign that campaigners have hardened their position and are refusing to allow any discrimination, seeing it as appeasement. Her amendment has the support of Women and the Church, a group fighting for equality.

Senior female clergy have said they would rather see a delay in the legislation than accept discriminatory laws.

Even if every stage of the legislation were to be introduced as quickly as possible, women bishops could not be installed until 2014 at the earliest, according to the Church of England.

    Church of England to consider introducing 'super-bishops' to avert crisis over women, G, 7.8.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/07/anglicanism.religion

Archbishop hits back

at the evangelical rebels

Synod applauds Sentamu
for defending Williams in row over gay clergy

Sunday July 6, 2008
The Observer,
Riazat Butt
 

The Archbishop of York condemned leaders of a breakaway global church yesterday for their 'ungenerous and unwarranted' scapegoating of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

John Sentamu launched a spirited defence of Rowan Williams during his presidential address to the General Synod, the legislative body of the Church of England, which is meeting this week in York.

He criticised members of the Global Anglican Future Conference - a new movement for conservative evangelicals opposed to the consecration of gay clergy - for attacking Williams at their inaugural event in Jerusalem last month. The Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, accused Williams of apostasy, while Canon Vinay Samuel, from India, dismissed him as an 'historical relic'.

Sentamu said that it was impossible for him to ignore such remarks. 'It grieved me deeply to hear reports of the ungracious personalisation of the issues through the criticism and scapegoating of Williams. They describe a person I don't recognise as Rowan,' he said.

'He demonstrates the gifts of gracious magnanimity. The archbishop, in the current contested debate on sexuality, is a model of attentive listening.'

His comments drew generous applause from the Synod, marking a rare moment of harmony among its 468 members, who will take a crucial vote tomorrow on the consecration of women bishops, a matter that could prompt a mass defection among rank-and-file members of the Church of England.

Traditionalists are demanding the right to opt out of the jurisdiction of a woman into special dioceses headed by male bishops, or at least to have guaranteed access to male bishops. Some of them argue that Jesus chose only men to be his 12 apostles, who were given leadership of the early church, and that an unbroken chain of male bishops has led the church since then.

The Rev Angus Macley, from Sevenoaks, Kent, said: 'For some of us, we feel that the argument has still not been made that the consecration of women to the episcopate is the word of God. The view that women bishops are repugnant to the word of God is an accepted position.'

Proposals for 'men only' churches have been rejected by some women clergy, who are furious that sexual discrimination could be enshrined in law and lead to a two-tier structure of bishops, with women regarded as second-class citizens.

The Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, from Hackney, east London, said: 'Why am I repugnant to the word of God? What is it about women clergy that scares people? We don't have leprosy. It is not about the Bible, it is about hanging on to a male power base and keeping women out.'

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are said to be concerned about the prospect of a rebellion and have argued for legislative protection for traditionalists rather than a voluntary code of practice. They were outvoted by other bishops, who want a measure to consecrate women, with a voluntary code of practice to protect traditionalists.

An indication that the ordination of women bishops may stall in favour of further discussion came when an influential member of the Synod, the Venerable Norman Russell, Archdeacon of Berkshire, said that any legislation would eventually need a two-thirds majority of each house of the Synod - clergy, laity and bishops.

'There is no point in putting time and money into the development of legislation which has no hope at all of gaining the two-thirds majority,' said Russell, who recommended that the group responsible for drafting the legislation further explore the idea of men-only churches.

    Archbishop hits back at the evangelical rebels, O, 6.7.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/06/religion.anglicanism

Muslims feel like 'Jews of Europe'

Minister's shock warning on rise of anti-Islamic prejudice

Friday, 4 July 2008
The Independent
By Cahal Milmo, Chief Reporter


Britain's first Muslim minister has attacked the growing culture of hostility against Muslims in the United Kingdom, saying that many feel targeted like "the Jews of Europe".


Shahid Malik, who was appointed as a minister in the Department for International Development (Dfid) by Gordon Brown last summer, said it has become legitimate to target Muslims in the media and society at large in a way that would be unacceptable for any other minority.

Mr Malik made clear that he was not equating the situation with the Holocaust but warned that many British Muslims now felt like "aliens in their own country". He said he himself had been the target of a string of racist incidents, including the firebombing of his family car and an attempt to run him down at a petrol station.

"I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe," he said. "I don't mean to equate that with the Holocaust but in the way that it was legitimate almost – and still is in some parts – to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.

"Somehow there's a message out there that it's OK to target people as long as it's Muslims. And you don't have to worry about the facts, and people will turn a blind eye."

The claims are made in an interview to be broadcast on Monday in a Channel 4 Dispatches programme to coincide with the third anniversary of the London bombings of 7 July.

A poll to accompany the documentary highlights the growing polarisation of opinion among Britain's 1.6 million Muslims, who say they have suffered a marked increase in hostility since the London bombings.

The ICM survey found that 51 per cent of Britons blame Islam to some degree for the 2005 attacks while more than a quarter of Muslims now believe Islamic values are not compatible with British values. While 90 per cent of Muslims said they felt attached to Britain, eight out of 10 said they felt there was more religious prejudice against their faith since the July bombings.

The Dispatches film, "It Shouldn't Happen to a Muslim", presented by the writer and broadcaster Peter Oborne, examines claims that negative attitudes to Muslims have become legitimised by think-tanks and newspaper commentators, who use language that is now being parroted by the far right.

Mr Malik, who narrowly escaped serious injury when a car was driven at him at a petrol station in his home town of Burnley in 2002, said he regularly receives anti-Muslim hate mail at his constituency office in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, which has the highest BNP vote in the country and was home to Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the suicide attackers who killed 52 people in London in 2005.

The MP said the negative portrayal of Muslims in the media, including a story run by several national newspapers in December last year wrongly stating that staff in the Dewsbury and District Hospital had been ordered to turn the beds of Muslim patients towards Mecca five times a day, was a key example of how his co-religionists were being alienated from the mainstream.

He said: "It's almost as if you don't have to check your facts when it comes to certain people, and you can just run with those stories. It makes Muslims feel like aliens in their own country. At a time when we want to engage with Muslims, actually the opposite happens."

The Dispatches programme also speaks to Andy Hayman, the former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner who was Britain's most senior anti-terrorism officer until he resigned last December. Mr Hayman, who was criticised for failing to tell senior Scotland Yard officers that an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, had been shot dead after being mistaken for a suicide bomber, is asked why he thinks it is important to engage with Muslims expressing extreme views.

Mr Hayman said: "Because we're tackling head on the people that we feel are at the heartbeat of this whole complex agenda. Not to have a dialogue with them would seem that we are apprehensive, we're scared, we're frightened... So even if it's appeasement in some quarters, that is still a conversation that is not being had and needs to be had."

Mr Malik's comments were backed by Simon Woolley, a member of the Government's task force on race equality, and co-founder of Operation Black Vote. He said: "On an almost daily basis, there is rampant Islamophobia in this country, the effect of which is not for our Muslim community to get closer to a sense of Britishness but to feel further away from a feeling of belonging in British society."

    Muslims feel like 'Jews of Europe', I, 4.7.2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslims-feel-like-jews-of-europe-859978.html

The enemy within?

Fear of Islam:

Britain's new disease

Suspicion of the Muslim community
has found its way into mainstream society
– and nobody seems to care.
By Peter Oborne

Friday, 4 July 2008
The Independent


Three years ago, four young suicide bombers caused carnage in London. Their aim was not just to kill and maim. There was also a long-term strategic purpose: to sow suspicion and divide Britain between Muslims and the rest. They are succeeding.

In Britain today, there is a deepening distrust between mainstream society and ever more isolated Muslim communities. A culture of contempt and violence is emerging on our streets.

Sarfraz Sarwar is a pillar of the Muslim community in Basildon, Essex. He is constantly abused and attacked, and the prayer centre he used has been burnt to the ground.

Mr Sarwar, who has six children and whose wife is matron of an old people's home, is a patently decent man. His only crime is his religious faith. He and his fellow worshippers now meet in secret to evade detection, and the attacks that would follow.

The first abuse that Mr Sarwar's family suffered was in October 2001 – just after the 9/11 attacks – when pigs' trotters were left outside their door, the walls of their house were covered with graffiti and two front windows were broken.

Since then, the family has suffered many attacks, including a failed fire-bombing. In February, the tyres of Mr Sarwar's new car were slashed; in March his windows were broken again. He has now installed CCTV cameras, replaced his wooden back door with one made of steel and erected higher fences.

An investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme discovered many violent episodes and attacks on Muslims, with very few reported; those that do get almost no publicity.

Last week, Martyn Gilleard, a Nazi sympathiser in East Yorkshire, was jailed for 16 years. Police found four nail bombs, bullets, swords, axes and knives in his flat. Gilleard had been preparing for a war against Muslims. In a note at his flat he had written, "I am sick and tired of hearing nationalists talking of killing Muslims, blowing up mosques and fighting back only to see these acts of resistance fail. The time has come to stop the talking and start to act."

The Gilleard case went all but unreported. Had a Muslim been found with an arsenal of weapons and planning violent assaults, it would have been a far bigger story.

There is a reason for this blindness in the media. The systematic demonisation of Muslims has become an important part of the central narrative of the British political and media class; it is so entrenched, so much part of normal discussion, that almost nobody notices. Protests go unheard and unnoticed.

Why? Britain's Muslim immigrants are mainly poor, isolated and alienated from mainstream society. Many are a different colour. As a community, British Muslims are relatively powerless. There are few Muslim MPs, there has never been a Muslim cabinet minister, no mainstream newspaper is owned by a Muslim and, as far as we are aware, only one national newspaper has a regular Muslim columnist on its comment pages, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of The Independent.

Surveys show Muslims have the highest rate of unemployment, the poorest health, the most disability and fewest educational qualifications of any faith group in the country. This means they are vulnerable, rendering them open to ignorant and hostile commentary from mainstream figures.

Islamophobia – defined in 1997 by the landmark report from the Runnymede Trust as "an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination" – can be encountered in the best circles: among our most famous novelists, among newspaper columnists, and in the Church of England.

Its appeal is wide-ranging. "I am an Islamophobe," the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee wrote in The Independent nearly 10 years ago. "Islamophobia?" the Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle asks rhetorically in the title of a recent speech, "Count me in". Imagine Liddle declaring: "Anti-Semitism? Count me in", or Toynbee claiming she was "an anti-Semite and proud of it".

Anti-Semitism is recognised as an evil, noxious creed, and its adherents are barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion. Not so Islamophobia.

Its practitioners say Islamophobia cannot be regarded as the same as anti-Semitism because the former is hatred of an ideology or a religion, not Muslims themselves. This means there is no social, political or cultural protection for Muslims: as far as the British political, media and literary establishment is concerned the normal rules of engagement are suspended.

"There is a definite urge; don't you have it?", the author Martin Amis told Ginny Dougary of The Times: "The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. Not letting them travel. Deportation; further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or Pakistan. Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children." Here, Amis is doing much more than insulting Muslims. He is using the foul and barbarous language of fascism. Yet his books continue to sell, and his work continues to be celebrated.

And we found the language of Islamophobic columnists such as Toynbee, Liddle, or novelists such as Amis, duplicated by the British National Party and its growing band of supporters.

All over Europe, parties of the far right have been dropping their traditional hostility to minorities such as Jews and homosexuals; in Britain, the BNP has come to realise that anti-Semitism and anti-black campaigning won't work if they are serious about electoral success.

To move to mainstream respectability, they need an issue that allows them to exploit people's fears about immigrants and Britain's ethnic minority communities without being branded racist extremists.

They have found it. Since 9/11, and particularly 7/7, the BNP has gone all out to tap a rich vein of anti-Muslim sentiment. The party's leader, Nick Griffin, has described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" and has tried to distance himself and the party from its anti-Semitic past. Party members are now rebuked for discussing the Holocaust and told to focus on terrorism, the evils of Islam, and scare stories of Britain becoming an Islamic state.

Griffin's strategy has been inspired by the press. He said: "We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. It's the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with."

Last month, we visited Stoke-on-Trent, a BNP heartland with nine BNP councillors, a council second only to Barking and Dagenham in far-right representation. The party has made this progress in large part by mounting a vicious anti-Muslim campaign. Stoke has one of the lowest employment rates in the country since the pottery industry collapsed. The BNP has tried to link this decline to Muslim immigration.

Other campaigns have focused on planning issues over mosques, a flashpoint elsewhere too. The BNP accuses the Labour council of cutting special deals with Muslim groups in exchange for support. Wherever we explored tension between Muslims and the local community we tended to discover the BNP was present, fanning discontent.

Many categories of immigrants and foreigners have been singled out for hatred and opprobrium by mainstream society because they were felt to be threats to British identity. At times, these despised categories have included Catholics, Jews, French and Germans; gays were held to subvert decency and normality until the 1980s, blacks until the 1970s, and Jews for centuries. Now this outcast role has fallen to Muslims. And it is the perception that Muslims receive special treatment that fuels the most resentment. When we investigated clashes at a Muslim dairy in Windsor, we found the perception that police had failed to investigate what seemed to be a racist attack by Asian youths on a local woman played a powerful role in fanning resentments.

But by the same token we believe that Muslims should be given the same protection as other minority groups from insults or ignorant abuse. This protection is not available. Ordinary Muslim families are virtually a silenced minority.

We should all feel ashamed about the way we treat Muslims, in the media, in our politics, and on our streets. We do not treat Muslims with the tolerance, decency and fairness that we often like to boast is the British way. We urgently need to change our public culture.

Peter Oborne's Dispatches film, "It Shouldn't Happen to a Muslim", will be screened on Channel 4 at 8pm on Monday. The pamphlet Muslims Under Siege, by Peter Oborne and James Jones, is published next week by Democratic Audit

    The enemy within? Fear of Islam: Britain's new disease, I, 4.7.2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-enemy-within-fear-of-islam-britains-new-disease-859996.html

12.30pm BST

Archbishop of Canterbury

hits out at breakaway Anglicans

Tuesday July 1, 2008
Guardian.co.uk
Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent, and Peter Walker
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Tuesday July 01 2008.
It was last updated at 13:28 on July 01 2008.

The Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday accused rebel Anglicans who have launched a breakaway faction within the global communion of lacking legitimacy, authority and, by implication, integrity.

Breaking his silence over the threat to the unity of the 77 million-strong communion, Dr Rowan Williams warned leaders of the conservative coalition that "demolishing existing structures" was not the answer to their concerns.

The Church of England faces further upheaval on a second front, with a group of clergy and bishops threatening to defect over the issue of women bishops.

More than 1,300 clergy and 11 bishops have written (pdf) to Williams to say that the prospect of female bishops had left them "thinking very hard about the way ahead".

The issue is set to dominate a General Synod meeting that begins on Friday.

"We will inevitably be asking whether we can, in conscience, continue to minister as bishops, priests and deacons in the Church of England which has been our home," the letter says.

"We do not write this in a spirit of making threats or throwing down gauntlets.

"Rather, we believe that the time has come to make our concerns plain, so that the possible consequences of a failure to make provision which allows us to flourish and to grow are clear."

In a statement last night, Williams responded robustly to the weekend creation of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (Foca), a global network for millions of Anglicans unhappy with liberal teaching on issues such as homosexuality and women priests.

"If they [the teachings] are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve," the archbishop said.

The announcement of the new body came at the culmination of the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon), a rebel summit in Jerusalem that attracted more than 300 bishops.

Williams described the proposals as "problematic in all sorts of ways", saying he would "urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed".

He focused criticism on the leaders of the new primates council, which is tasked with recruiting existing Anglicans into the network.

"A primates council which consists only of a self-selected group from among the primates of the [Anglican] communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all," he said.

"And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties."

Church sources said there was no information on who had written the Gafcon document, how many primates had signed up to it or whether it was legally possible to set up an alternative communion.

"It is ludicrous to say you do not recognise the Archbishop of Canterbury or the see of Canterbury - they are the defining characteristics of Anglicanism," one Lambeth palace official said.

"By doing away with the role and the place, these people are becoming a Protestant sect."

Leading Gafcon figures arrived in London yesterday to woo parishes considering opting out of mainstream Anglicanism to join the new network.

The Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, and the Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi, will be among those addressing an audience of more than 750 clergy and churchwardens on global Anglicanism and English orthodoxy.

The Gafcon team have declared that they are ignoring historic links with Canterbury, deeming them to be superfluous, and are severing ties with the US church and the Anglican church in Canada.

In a statement on Sunday, they said: "We do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury."

Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at breakaway Anglicans, G, 1.7.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/01/anglicanism.religion1