Loading ...Pope Benedict to visit England, Scotland
flockwoodPope to visit England, Scotland in September
By ROBERT BARR
Associated Press Writer
LONDON (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI will visit Scotland and England in September in a four-day visit combining preaching and diplomacy, Buckingham Palace announced Tuesday.
British officials described it as an unprecedented “papal visit with the status of a state visit,” though some of the usual trappings laid on for a visiting head of state will not be offered to the pope. An earlier visit by Pope John Paul II in 1982 was a pastoral visit only.
During his visit Benedict plans to conduct a public mass in Glasgow’s Bellahouston Park, where some 300,000 people swarmed a mass celebrated by Pope John Paul II during his pastoral visit in 1982. John Paul’s visit was strictly to visit his flock — rather than as a head of a state. John Paul was not received by the queen.
In England, Benedict will preside at the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman in Coventry; in London he will give a speech to leaders of civil society, join leaders of other churches for an ecumenical service at Westminster Abbey and call on Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams at Lambeth Palace. He will not visit Wales, church officials said.
Further details of the papal itinerary will be released later.
“A defining feature of Pope Benedict’s teaching has been to remind Europe of its Christian roots and culture and to give us guidance on the great moral issues of the day, and it is my hope that we’ll open our hearts to his words,” said Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols, leader of Catholics in England and Wales, told reporters that he didn’t know whether Benedict planned to address the issue of child sexual abuse within the church.
Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy said the pope’s visit would cost taxpayers about 15 million pounds ($22.5 million) in addition to police costs, which will come from existing budgets. Murphy contrasted that to the 19 million pounds cost of staging a one-day G-20 summit in London.
Newman’s beatification marks the first time in Benedict’s papacy that he has personally presided at the creation of a new saint.
Newman’s journey from being a Church of England priest to becoming a prince of the Catholic Church has a particular relevance now, since Benedict has invited traditionalist Anglican clergy to join a special structure which would allow priests — including married men — to keep certain Church of England rites within the Catholic fold.
It remains to be seen how many Anglicans will accept the invitation.
Archbishop Williams, the spiritual leader of the world’s Anglicans, welcomed the papal visit.
“The pope’s visit will be an opportunity to cement ties not only between the Holy See and the United Kingdom but also the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian churches in Scotland, England and Wales,” Williams said.
The Church of England and state churches in Scotland and Wales were created by King Henry VIII, who had been unable to gain the Vatican’s consent to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
The breach led to violent suppression of Catholics, and then Anglicans when Henry’s Catholic daughter, Queen Mary, succeeded to the throne.
Catholicism was vigorously rooted out in Scotland. The historian W.H. Murray has written that there were 39 Catholics and 43 anti-Catholic societies in Glasgow in 1798.
Sectarian passions were slow to cool; they live on, for instance, in the intense rivalry between Protestant supporters of Glasgow’s Rangers FC soccer team and Catholic fans of Celtic FC.
Benedict’s meeting with Queen Elizabeth II will be an encounter between two heads of state as well as two heads of churches.
The Vatican is a state, and the queen is the supreme governor of the Church of England. Catholics still are forbidden to ascend to the throne.
Britain did not resume official relations with the Vatican until 1914, and waited until 1982 to exchange ambassadors.
———
March 16th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Ya reckon this has anything to do with the fact that the Roman Church is trying to pick up members of the Church of England offended by its new-found inclusivity? Nah, he probably just wanted to eat some haggis and bangers and mash.
March 16th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
That would be an appropriate meal for Lent, a season of sacrifice and atonement.
March 17th, 2010 at 3:47 am
I wonder if Ireland is still to politically hot to host a papal visit.. When we were kids in parochial school part of our assignments were to read the paper everyday, the unrest in the region between the catholics and the protestant were unbelievable. The killings and the bombings had you trying to figure out what any of it had to do with religion. Its changed over the years but sadly just moved to another country in another part of the world, and somebody is still be persecuted for what they believe in.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
That would be Northern Ireland, Perplexed, which is still under British rule. The Irish Republic, as it used to be called, is quite tame and quite Catholic. I’m sure they’d love to see His Nibs. I doubt if Northern Ireland would be quite as welcoming.
Jose, I heard a story on NPR the other day that said that haggis actually tasted, well, good. There’s that liberal media bias again . . .
March 17th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
It’s interesting he will be beatifying John Henry Newman during his visit. Celebrating a convert from the C of E on their home turf is kind of a challenge, isn’t it? I wonder what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks about that.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Newman is in equal parts hero to the Catholics and demon to the Church of England. I expect the Pope’s entire visit will not sit well with the Archbishop of Canterbury, primarily because the Pope is trying to fish in his pond. With the C of E having decided to ordain women, many conservatives in that church are looking toward Rome, and look, here comes the Pope, like a newly minted realtor, ready to look at the neighborhood and make deals. At least the C of E has saved England from the type of sex abuse scandal that has rocked nations with more of a Catholic population. They might want to ask the Pope about that while he’s there, since he apparently personally helped cover it up.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Both Anglican and Roman Church are catholic, by believing universal church and apostolic succession. Liturgy is more or less same. At the beginning of 2nd decade of new millennium Church should work for unification, narrowing down the difference. Prayer alone can not unite fragmented body of Chris, caused by minor theological difference such as allowing priest to be married. Caleb’s analysis is true to Church politics and interesting, but theologically it is incorrect for a division.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Julian, buddy, I hate to break it to you, but this ain’t about theology, it’s solely about politics. The Church of England represents Anglo-Catholicism in all its wretched glory, and I don’t imagine that there are many, if any, significant theological differences between the average CofE member and the average Roman Catholic in England.
The differences are financial and political. The break between the English Church and the Roman Church was caused far more by financial issues than by Henry VIII’s desire for an annulment of his marriages. The phrase “borrowing from Peter to pay Paul” refers to the fact that Catholics in England, before the split, chose to use their money to build St. Paul’s cathedral in London, rather than sending money to Rome to build St. Peter’s.
I think all talk of a re-unification between Rome and Canterbury pretty well ended when the Catholic sex abuse scandal broke out in the US, and I don’t see those talks being revived. Personally, as much as I agree with Julian that the Anglican Communion is Catholic, I am less certain that the Roman Church is. The sex abuse scandal is merely the suppurating sore on the face of Catholicism; it represents a far more foul and dangerous disease under the surface: The Roman Church has abandoned the faith of the apostles, and by its condoning of the actions of its priests (and now bishops, right up to the Pope himself) has shown that it is not willing to play by the same rules as everyone else. I have no desire to see Anglicans re-unify with the Roman Church, because I don’t trust the Roman Church as far as I can spit, and that’s being gracious.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Actually, I think the C of E would more than grateful if Benedict took all those grumbling conservatives off their hands, and put them in a church where they no longer had any voting rights in the C of E.
I’m wondering how long before the pedophile cover-up scandal surfaces a smoking gun pointing at Herr Ratzinger? Not long, I predict.
March 19th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
I think it’s already there, Niall: He was Archbishop in charge of Bavaria (the home, by the way, of National Socialism) and helped cover up the doings of others. I doubt that he was a pedophile himself, because one thing I’ve noticed is that (former Lexington Bishop J. Kendrick Williams notwithstanding) very few actual pedophiles made it to the pointy hat, though many pointy hats helped cover it up. Don’t think for a second that the committee members and whatnot who vet these bishops didn’t know exactly who the pedophiles were, and kept them from advancing in the church. The result of this, of course, is that the pedophiles were retained as parish priests and thus kept in a job in which they had ready access to children. And you all wonder why I despise the current leadership of the church so much.
March 21st, 2010 at 12:41 am
Caleb and Niall, Both Roman Catholic (RC) and Church of England (C of E) are now passing through a very grave situation of their history of Church, because of sex. Pope well said in his apology to Irish catholic that what Christian prosecution in early church history could not damage to Church for centuries, but this sex scandal did much more within short period of time. He also said well which I like most that these priests and bishops who are involved in this sexual adultery with either child abuse or adult would be accountable to God Almighty whether their sins exposed to public or not. It also reminds me that belonging to a Church alone would not grantee grace for salvation, unless individual souls are pure to God who knows everything. In other word bishops and priests can not take any body heaven as many believe.
C of E is now also in its critical moment for its survival in future. Its synod would vote soon on woman bishop and later gay bishop and believers are divided for true to Christian value. The Church would explode soon by division like Episcopal Church USA, if not act wisely. Those who believe “united we stand, divided we fall” must visualize the consequence by observing the trial in Anglican USA.
C of E have also history of concealing sexual adultery by church leaders and like RC, C of E did not learn lesson from history that sexual sins does not leave neither a person nor a Church upright for long time. It must fall with corruption of sex. As Pope agreed, C of E also have problem with recruiting priest who have had past record of sexual adultery. Retired bishop Spong’s threatening to disclose the names of priests/bishops who oppose the same sex activities is interesting to mention. Sexual sins are most dangerous, king lost his kingdom because of sex as history says. It is very sad to say very few Christian Church is immune from this sex scandal. So it is loose- loose situation for all Churches, no Christian can gain anything spiritually other than political gain over the biggest Church of the world. There is nothing to rejoice other than justice has been served even though it is late. It is wake-up call for all churches, so that no kids lose souls instead of saving by going to a church.
Pope is coming to England in right time to save Christianity. History would be witness if they do nothing for recovering glory of God at this critical time of both Churches. C of E is also loosing it popularity as a Christian country. If both RC and C of E are in real repentance, I am hopeful something would come that would regain past glory of Church and meet the new challenge for this new millennium to glorify God, whose righteousness does not change with time
March 21st, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Julian sez: “He [the Pope] also said well which I like most that these priests and bishops who are involved in this sexual adultery with either child abuse or adult would be accountable to God Almighty whether their sins exposed to public or not.”
That may be true, Julian, but no doubt the reason he said it in that manner was because he knew the ONE bishop whose sins would NOT be exposed publicly would be him. It is clear from published accounts that Ratzinger participated, willingly and apparently gleefully, in the cover-up of sexual abuse by priests, AS DID EVERY DIOCESAN BISHOP IN THE UNITED STATES. Julian, this is a criminal enterprise which has covered up sexual abuse for hundreds of years and still does so today. You say that the Pope is coming to England to save Christianity, but Julian, pedophiles, or those who cover up for them, do not save churches.
The only thing that will “save” the Church of England, if it needs saving, which I doubt, is a return to the core of Anglicanism: The principle of live and let live. When the Anglican church was conceived, it was not conceived as a church with a particular theology, but as a church with a particular style of worship. It was often said that Queen Elizabeth I didn’t care what a person believed as long as they worshiped out of th Book of Common Prayer. We need to get back to our roots of inclusiveness and give up these silly evangelical tendencies which have come upon the church in recent years.
March 21st, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Caleb, King/Queen might have one reason to establish a universal church to keep their subjects busy in going to a house for their happiness as they like in a multicultural society or nations. But Peter, Paul, Barnabas, James and others in early church, what treasure they found, did not confide them in a house only, but made them evangelizing their finding to include all people of the world to share the good news. They risked their life for evangelism. Their inclusiveness e.g. allowing gentile to Christianity w/o circumcision, against traditional teaching was justified based on teaching of Christ as well as teachings of their forefathers. But Gentile had to abandon their old life style such as fornication to allow Holy Spirit acts freely upon their life. Please see Acts 15:1-11 if you like how Council of Jerusalem approved a doctrine out of tradition for inclusion. But on the contrary today’s inclusiveness does not have any guideline to follow. Different council approves different policy as required by their culture w/o foreseeing its broader pictures, effects on moral, core value of religion and opinion of other councils of Church. They fought for leadership, and changed The Book of Common Prayer. I am not against “let live and let other live” but I am with standard Christian principles acceptable to will of God for any changes. To know will of God no one needs to be a specialist on any subjects. Evangelism is not silly acts for a church as you stated but obligation of a church which is deeply rooted in Christianity.