A troublesome bishop
No, not Gene Robinson.
The Anglican Communion News Service provides this profoundly peculiar statement from Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop Bernard Malango of Central Africa regarding the pair's meeting today with Bishop Nolbert Kunonga, Anglican Bishop of Harare.
Kunonga, a crony of Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe had been charged in an ecclesiastical court with incitement to murder, intimidating critics, ignoring church law, mishandling funds and preaching racial hatred. "He has also occupied a farm and evicted 40 families from a local village," Stephen Bates wrote in The Church of England Newspaper. "A couple of months ago he even licensed the acting vice-president of Zimbabwe Joseph Msika, a man on record as saying that whites are not human beings, to act as a deacon of the church."
(For an excellent background article on Kunonga, look here.)
Malango has consistently protected Kunonga, dismissing the 38 charges against him when an ecclesiastical trial became chaotic, and attending the celebration of the bishop's wedding anniversary.
Now comes the following statement:
"We are grateful for the chance to meet face to face and discuss the role of the church in Zimbabwe and the wider region in working towards the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals.
"We shared our deep concerns with the Bishop of Harare about the situation in Zimbabwe, affirming those places where Anglican ministries are bearing fruit and the church is growing, but also expressing the widespread concerns in the global church and in the international community about the deteriorating economic life of Zimbabwe and issues of human rights and peaceful non-partisan protest.
"We encouraged the development of an independent voice for the church in response to these challenges. All ministers of the gospel must be free to serve and to speak for the needs of those most deprived and disadvantaged.
"We want to find new channels of communication and to facilitate regional conversations about issues of development and justice, including the impact of sanctions, so that Anglicans may work together more effectively with and for the poor whom they serve in Christ's name."
This statement, coming in the midst of Williams' silence on the matter of Peter Akinola's support for human rights violations, makes you wonder what a conservative prelate would have to do in order to elicit a public expression of displeasure from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Is that the way the Archbishop of Canterbury chastises a known oppressor of human rights? ++ Rowan is mandating that we essentially abandon our polity and practice while he's giving Bishop Nolbert Kunonga a "pass." These are matters I truly don't understand ...
Posted by JStrader | March 7, 2007 12:52 PM
To be fair, I do recall that ++Rowan previously said this about Kunonga: " “In other jurisdictions, a priest or bishop facing such serious charges would be suspended without prejudice until the case had been closed,” the statement said. “It is therefore very difficult for Bishop Kunonga to be regarded as capable of functioning as a bishop elsewhere in the communion.”
that was from a Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article673571.ece
that said, I agree that Williams is failing to confront Malango over his inaction re Kunonga. and Williams has certainly failed to confront Akinola.
Posted by Weiwen | March 7, 2007 1:19 PM
Is there some medical term for a condition of being blind in the right eye while having perfect vision in the left?
It amazes me that Rowan can (and does) take very controversial positions on secular political matters but refuses even the most patently justified condemnation on ecclesiastical issues like these.
Posted by John-Julian,OJN | March 7, 2007 1:56 PM
Fr. John-Julian, there are several conditions that can affect sight in just that way. All are quite serious, and risk becoming fatal.
Posted by mscottsail | March 7, 2007 2:17 PM
Fr John Julian,
There's a cognitive condition called unilateral neglect. It's usually caused by brain injuries. It is not blindness, but is a disorder of attention where patients fail to respond to stimuli coming from one side of the body. If asked to draw a flower, they will draw a half flower, and say truthfully that they have drawn a whole flower. If driving, they will bump into all sorts of things on their left and not notice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_neglect
Posted by Weiwen | March 9, 2007 11:18 AM
Actually, this is merely an example of what is generally true about the church when it comes to disciplining bishops and clergy for personal misconduct. You keep it out of the public eye as much as you can (using the cover of "pastoral concern") even when the truth is that the church failed to provide adequate safeguards to deter misconduct. The consequences are often perverse: the troublesome clergy gets a payoff to leave, and then turns up in a similar position at a parish that has not been told about the misconduct.
Posted by John B. Chilton | March 10, 2007 1:23 AM