A Senior Cleric Writes
As a clergyman I am often asked is an Archbishop ever wrong and if so can I have my money back?
The answer to these questions is far from easy and a good deal of penitential prayer, soul seeking and focus-group discussion is always necessary. Sometimes putting an answer “out there” and gauging the public reaction can be a positive way forward but this rarely if ever leads to a resolution let alone a resignation [until absolutely necessary and invariably too late].
History tells us that Archbishops can be both right and wrong yet suffer the same consequences - witness Becket, Cranmer, Laud and (more recently) Justice Wellhung*.
* Not actually executed just hung out to dry for a thousand years and expunged from the record by those
who championed his ministry .
In general, archbishops of whatever stripe - theologians, didacts, preachers or former oil company executives - are allowed a fair amount of leeway before they fall from grace and even then, only if they are egregiously and demonstrably incompetent are they sent to Cambridge as masters of colleges. Many retire into well deserved obscurity guilty only of overseeing the Church of England’s terminal decline into an arm of the civil service. The House of Lords boasts several senior members of the clergy amongst its ranks (misleading titled the "Lords Spiritual"**) but they tend to make little impact and even fewer principled stances other than by claiming their attendance allowance as often as time allows (ie every Monday to Saturday not including Christmas and Easter).
** Possibly a reference to their predilection “shorts” in the communal bar
The matter of congregational compensation is a different one. As with any and all transactional businesses, the production of a valid receipt for donations given (rarely possible in the case of a traditional plate collection) helps as proof of purchase but may not persuade a recalcitrant parish treasurer. My best advice is that anyone feeling they are owed monies should continue attending church regularly but rather than depositing coinage into the passing salver begin to make small but steady withdrawals until they have recouped their losses. Few will notice [few will be there to notice] and you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that you are in fact offering a benefaction by hastening the Church’s inevitable but far too long drawn-out demise. Sometimes it is a kindness to put a systemically dysfunctional institution to rest. In this, those of us who have the good, wellbeing and safety of the community at heart - can all play our part.
Our Film Correspondent Pelle Küel writes:
As coincidence would have it, this week sees the release of Archbishop II, a continuation of the epic adventure of an early Roman Archbishop sent to fight in the arena for crimes against animals. Ludicrous Maximus II [Pontiff of Ostia] is forced into mortal combat after being denounced by his bishops - who accuse him of unnatural acts - in an attempt to deflect from their own transgressive behaviour.
In the film the Archbishop is forced to wrestle with tigers, lions, rhinoceri and ostriches - creatures with which he is clearly already "over familiar". Ironically, he survives, winning his freedom, but only to be sent to Britain to found the church there on "basic Roman principles".
Comments