Anglicans across the world must be so relieved that the newly confirmed – although not yet installed – Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Doollaly*, is going to focus on misogyny (does anyone else have problems spelling that word?) in her new role as head of the Anglican community worldwide. The country is facing a spiritual crisis, Anglican clergy mostly face empty pews on a Sunday morning, and we are in imminent danger of becoming an Islamic country.
Empty Pews, Full Echo Chambers
But Sarah has decided to focus on a non-issue that will make her popular within her own echo chamber and accelerate all the problems – outlined above – from which we are suffering. It must rankle the rampant feminist who is soon to occupy Lambeth Palace that God is identified as ‘He’ and that Jesus was the ‘Son of God’. The third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is not ascribed a gender in the Bible so that may be a relief to her. But two out of three must be two too many. It’s too bad for our Sarah that the misogyny, at which she takes such offence, starts right at the top.
Mary: Too Catholic for Canterbury
Of course, she could simply ignore the first two persons of the Holy Trinity and focus on the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary who, as far as we can tell, was a woman. But that presents a problem for the Rev Doolally. Apart from a few in the Anglo-Catholic community, most Anglicans do not hold Mary in any high regard.
Most certainly they do not, as we Roman Catholics do, accept Mary as an intercessor with her son Jesus. As far as I know, only we Catholics consider Mary to be the Queen of Heaven, something that fairly gets our Protestant detractors leaping about with indignation that anyone other than Jesus should be considered to rule.
The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury is not an Anglo-Catholic, so the road to elevating Mary – even if just to reset the misogynist imbalance – for higher regard by Anglicans is not open to her. She is a liberal theologian more affiliated with the evangelical end of the Anglican spectrum. What’s more, the Virgin Mary never ‘called out’ misogyny and got told what to do by a male angel in obedience to a God characterised as male. Tut, tut!
I was interested to read that her husband was brought up as a Catholic which only leads me to question how thin on the ground the talent was in his parish church if he decided to marry Ms Doolally. This brings me to another point about female Church of England clergy… (Editor: the rest of this paragraph was redacted on the grounds of misogyny).
The Hammer of Perpetual Offence
The problem for people with warped worldviews like Sarah Doolally, is that they carry the hammer of the perpetually offended – and wield it at every problem they see from whatever their adopted position is. Thus, the anti-racists see everything that is wrong from a racism perspective, gay activists from a homophobic perspective, trans activists from a transphobic perspective, and the Labour Party from an Islamophobic perspective.
Sarah’s adopted position is feminism; thus, everything will be called out, not in the name of The Father, but in the name of misogyny. The lack of women priests will be misogyny as will the lack of female Anglican Archbishops (only 50% so far), racism, transphobia etc will all have misogyny at their roots.
Some Misogyny Is More Equal Than Others
But you can bet your Maundy Money that the religion of peace will ‘get a bye’ on the misogyny front. No matter how many women walk about our streets peering out of slits, are otherwise confined to quarters, forced to marry their cousins and no matter how many honour killings, Muslim rape gangs and the disproportionate number of sexual assaults carried out by hordes of priapic immigrants – she’ll remain silent on that one.
To dare criticise the one true religion would be Islamophobia and, as we all know, that too stems from misogyny. If you don’t believe me then search ‘Sarah Mullaly on Muslim rape gangs’ in Google. At least ‘who is considered to be the most attractive female vicar in the Church of England’ got a few returns – although the results were disappointing. On the Muslim question – zilch.
The Anglican Church is surely doomed, not because the next Archbishop of Canterbury is a woman (well, not entirely) but because of what she stands for. That and the fact that the head of the Church – that’s the King remember – is an Islamic obsessive with only a loose grip of Christian theology. The Roman Catholic Church may benefit from an influx of disillusioned clergy and faithful but, even as a Roman Catholic, I would rather the Church of England become what it is meant to be.
*I must thank the wonderful columnist Steven Tucker for first using this name
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
(Photograph: Roger Harris, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)
(1) Is Doolally’s husband still a Catholic?
If he’s converted to CofE (or perhaps even Islam?) was this due to wifely henpecking? If he’s not now a CofE, her churchmanship/churchwomanship is perhaps not great at home (or elsewhere).
(2) Will the Pope refuse to meet with this ABofC?
GIven the invalidity of Anglican Orders and its consecration of clergy, plus the absolute no-no of women as priests.
If he does, then clearly he’s another fraud in a frock.
This appointment is not good for Catholics or Anglicans, but the hand of Starmer is all over it.
Suppose it had to happen.
Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad!
Or as the Bible says. Pride goeth before destruction.
As a much lapsed Catholic this whole C of E progressive agenda is enough to make me want to argue with a priest again. Generally speaking you get a decent and robust discourse with a whole brained priest as opposed to trying to successfully communicate with a half witted Anglican adherent.
The C of E, a weirdly distorted organisation ostensibly headed up by that famous “defender of the faith” (sorry, should read “all faiths”) King C the Third one. Charlie boy, the well known dandelion whisperer and islamophile.
As far as talking to any Anglicans, despair and a strange desire to bite my own ankle always results.
Anglicans, adherents of an upstart organisation. An organisation founded on the principles established by that well known epitome of tolerance and understanding, King Hal the Seventh (See: Hisory of The Enrish Spoking Pepes. Revised efition. Editor in chief : Dee Lammby no relation)
The C of E, an entity that is being women’s libbed out of existence.
It’s all like banging head against a sponge, the progressive ordure, the fashionable insubstantial fleeting AI substantiated excrement that masquerades as thought makes for deep despair.
I think I will go for gentle wander around the local Carmelite monastery.
Well, frankly, and I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m not inclined to discuss anything about the Anglican or C of E, written by a Catholic who at least gets THOSE names right but can’t quite get his head around the fact that the name of the Catholic Church is just that – the Catholic Church, not the “Roman” Catholic Church, while at the same time telling us he’s a Catholic. DUH…
So, I’m dipping in and out of here just to make that point. For those interested in the history behind the Reformers’ introduction of “Roman Catholic” (essentially to spread their “branch” heresy) you can visit the Christian Order website Links page and click on the article entitled How Did The Catholic Church Get Her Name. Among other gems, we find that the early bishop (Ignatius of Antioch, around 107AD) had used the name “Catholic Church” in a letter way back in the first days of Christianity. The irony of Catholics, including bishops’ websites, using the Protestant name for the Church is lost on most people, due to the ongoing crisis in the Church – there has been no authentic Catholic education since at least the early 1960s. Give the Anglicans their due – they at least know the name of their religion.
It’s just semantics at play, would you point out to those who adopt the label Queer or Gay or anything else, that you wouldn’t discuss anything with them unless they called themselves Homosexuals? (I do see where you are coming from though as you’veclearly explainedon severaloccasions.)
As for Anglicans, there are numerous other names in use (not counting other nonconformists) and some don’t even acknowledge that they are Protestant – at least Catholics all agree that they are Catholics!
No, Nathaniel, it’s not just semantics.
The Protestant reformers knew they’d have their work cut out to get Catholics to follow them out of the Church so they had to come up with something that would camouflage what was going on – and what better way than to say well, you’re not leaving the Catholic Church just that part that is ruled by the Pope in Rome – they’re Roman Catholics. The rest of us, Orthodox – and now Anglican – are still in “the Church”. Hence the misnomer used by some Anglicans who describe themselves as “Anglo-Catholics”.
That the Reformers’ ruse worked was brought home during an interview in London, outside the Catholic cathedral, at the time of Pope Benedict’s visit to the UK when the TV interviewer spoke with a small group of young people asking them if they were Catholics. Some said yes, but one said “Well, I’m an Anglo-Catholic”. In other words, he was an Anglican, a Protestant. But the Anglicans who like holy pictures (and even the Episcopal church here in Glasgow has a picture of Our Lady of Perpetual Help prominently displayed) and rosaries, who call their vicars “Father” and believe they have the Real Presence in Communion, they consider themselves to be part of the Catholic Church. So it worked. It’s not just semantics, Nathaniel – the intention was to deceive and there are Catholics today who remain ignorant of the history of this Protestant name for the Church. Bishops included.