{"id":122,"date":"2019-11-20T08:52:56","date_gmt":"2019-11-20T08:52:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/?page_id=122"},"modified":"2019-11-20T14:27:28","modified_gmt":"2019-11-20T14:27:28","slug":"closing-discussion","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/closing-discussion\/","title":{"rendered":"Closing discussion"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

THE CHAIRMAN<\/strong>: Thank you, Martin<\/a> and Andrew<\/a>, for a wonderful afternoon. Where you have finished is where I hope we can pick up in the discussion. You will be aware that we hope as a result of today to produce more than a report or an essay, but a book, and there will be a chance, I think, through your question-and-answer session, to shape what that book may look like \u2013 providing it comes to be, which I am sure it will. We will have a final enlivening hour, I hope. One thing that did occur to me is that, when Geoffrey Fisher came back and went to Central Hall, Westminster, and made that emphatic statement of Anglican superiority, he was on Methodist premises! There we are. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

You\nwill be glad to know there are quite a lot of questions. I do not\nthink we will get through all of them, and I will not ask all six\nspeakers to answer them all; but if any of you want to follow up on\nthe questions or responses, please wave a hand and we will come to\nyou.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nfirst question is this: \u2018Is\none aspect of Liberalism today the hyper-privileging of individual\nexperience, identity and outlook? Should Catholicity now be\nhighlighting the question \u201cHow do I fit in\u201d rather than \u201cHow do\nI stand out\u201d?\u2019<\/strong>\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\nare a number of questions in this area which to relate to the\ndoctrine of the Church, and the way in which, although every doctrine\nof the Church may be defective, there are plenty of areas of our\nChurch life where people have a very clear relationship with Jesus or\nan experience of the Holy Spirit, but a very low understanding of the\nChurch as an institution. I have noticed even Catholics talking\nabout the Church dying out, as if the angels and saints could all\ndisappear, and the church triumphant did not exist. So \u2018Is\none aspect of Liberalism now the hyper-privileging of individual\nexperience, identity and outlook? Should Catholicity now be asking\n\u2018How do I fit in\u2019 rather than \u2018How do I stand out\u2019?\u2019 Who\nam I going to look to first? Peter! Because, if you are a\nreligious, of course, there is no individuality at all, and you just\nwatch Netflix all the time! \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE REVD FR PETER ALLAN<\/strong>: I have a real difficulty with the way that the question is posed. Let me go back a step or two. There is writing about the individual of the kind that Charles Taylor1<\/sup><\/a> has done so significantly. There is writing about the individual of the kind that Larry Siedentop2<\/sup><\/a> has done, taking the roots right back to St Paul \u2013 a very fine book, but one that does not entirely take into account all the needs of the present day. But I have to say I think the present experience is not connected with Liberalism. I think it excludes Liberalism. Liberalism classically required a different kind of recognition of society. So I want to say that what we are challenged by is the tension between koinonia<\/em> and episcope<\/em> and the New Testament, between the corporate and the significance of particular persons, and how that is actually life-giving in a way we seem to have lost sight of. We need to recover a sense of the fulfilment of the individual through immersion in the community, and the fulfilment of community through recognition of the gifts of the individual. That seems to me to be at the core of it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD DR ANDREW DAVISON<\/strong>:\n Working in theology and science, the implication of experience rings\nin my ears because, if you look at what people write about in that\nfield, you might think there was nothing to religion except for\nreligious experience. Of course, that is important for some people\nand not for others, but it is certainly part of the picture \u2013 but\nthere is in certain fields, I think, too much attention to\nexperience. But I also want to say, with Fr Peter, that we have to\nbe really careful about how we contrast these two categories of the\nindividual and the social for all sorts of reasons. I will give you\na couple of examples. At this time, when we are supposed to be\nputting such emphasis on the individual, do we really live in a\nculture where the inherent dignity of each person made in the image\nof God is being upheld? I do not think it is. So one might\nneed a communal formation to recognise the dignity of each\nindividual. These things are just so paradoxically interwoven. The\nfact that everybody wants to express their individuality by, if you\nare a man, sporting a beard and getting tattooed, just shows that the\nrelation between individuality and expression of individuality and\ncommunality is interesting and complex; and the Church, I am sure,\nhas plenty to say about it. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD DR CAROLYN HAMMOND<\/strong>:\n One of my particular bugbears is the kind of language sometimes used\nin these discussions \u2013 the very common assumption in the Church\nthat the word \u2018liberal\u2019 is a bad word, when it seems to me that\nit stands for everything which is potentially most noble about our\nAnglican-Catholic heritage. This is something I often encounter with\nstudents: a desire to express their religious feelings in individual\nterms which are sometimes quite at odds with the institution. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\nit happens, at the moment I am seeing a student who is exploring a\nvocation to confirmation, and possibly later to ministry, but for\nwhom the problem is having to become part of an institution he does\nnot always agree with. I am having to explain to him the compromises\nand difficulties common to all of us, and that, if this were not a\nproblem for him in the terms of his vocation, it would be in\nsomething else, such as the profession he chose. Every time we make\na choice in our human existence, we open up one path in front of\nourselves only to close down others; and it is not helpful to think\nof submission to a particular tradition as a loss or a deprivation of\nother paths, but simply the best way we can go on to flourish. I\nhope I will manage to persuade him, but we will see. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD CANON DR ROBIN WARD<\/strong>:\n I think we should remember also that there was once a very thriving\nschool of Anglo-Catholic sociology, the Christendom Group and people\nlike that, that moved towards the Jubilee Group later on. The people\nassociated with this report were also meeting on an annual basis to\nthink about social issues, to think about what a Christian theology\nof work and of living might be \u2013 something very much associated\nwith the creation of the New Jerusalem of post\u2011war Britain, if\nyou like. That is another thing that has faded out of the tradition.\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I was very fortunate to have met David Nicholls, probably the last representative of this strand of Anglican sociology: the poncho-wearing, macaw-owning vicar of Littlemore, whose library is not in an Anglican institution in Oxford, but at Regent\u2019s Park College.3<\/sup><\/a> There are two halves to the library. Nicholls was an expert consulted by the Foreign Office on the politics of Haiti, but he also had at his fingertips also a very comprehensive knowledge of the Anglo-Catholic sociological tradition, the Figgis tradition, if you will. That scholarship does not really fit in with university syllabuses, and so tends not to be very well represented amongst academics working in universities. We have not really found a way of making sure that this sort of thought is incorporated into how the Church thinks about its social mission. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n Let us move on to something rather different in relation to\nauthority. This is a question: \u2018Has\nthe general decline in respect for authority weakened our confidence\nin proclaiming and witnessing to tradition?\u2019<\/strong>\n I am very conscious that when I am with Evangelicals, I find that\ntheir faith in the authority of the Word runs counter to culture. We\ndo not give much authority to words these days; but it is no\ndifferent in relation to the authority of all institutions and\ntradition. I want to ask Bishop Martin how we speak of tradition in\na society which does not recognise that any tradition has authority. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nRT REVD DR MARTIN WARNER<\/strong>:\n I think it\u2019s about finding how something can become attractive\nwhich has been presented as damaging. Institutions are generally\npresented as being damaging, and therefore we have to find something\nabout them which is life\u2011enhancing and attractive. I think the\nproblem with authority is similar. It has become a commodity which\nis regarded as potentially damaging, which is generally used badly \u2013\nand, of course, is closely associated with institutions. I think we\nsee this particularly now in the light of issues about sexual\nharassment: the whole business of \u2018Who is credible any more?\u2019 \u2013\nhow people have misused authority and power in really amazing ways. \nI think the reverse to that is about self\u2011knowledge, which is a\nchallenge to us spiritually: the recovery of something authentic to\nwhat we say we are. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nthe context of ministry in Brighton, we say that we are about love\nand dignity for all people; but the people of Brighton, with a\nmassive LGBTIQ community, say: \u2018We think you really mean God\nhates us because we don\u2019t conform to what you actually want.\u2019 It\nseems to me that this is a classic stand-off where we have to recover\nthe demonstrable qualities of what we say, in order to find the\nauthenticity of how we say it, and begin to recover trust \u2013 and\nthen some authority, attaching to our words. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n Andrew, can I look to you in terms of an understanding of tradition\nin contemporary society? \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DR\nANDREW CHANDLER<\/strong>:\n I think it is a very difficult thing to discuss, because it is such\nan obvious invitation to generalisations of various kinds. I think\nthat within the fabric of public culture in Britain over the last\nfifty years there have been enormous shifts in the language, the\nreflexes and the methods of public authorities of all kinds. One of\nthe things that I find most distinctive \u2013 and one of the things,\nincidentally, to which the Church in its various organisational forms\nhas not been immune \u2013 is the decline of Empiricism and its\nreplacing by a fairly sharp assessment of whatever serves the\ncorporate interest in a public context. Quite frankly, I think many\npeople do see through that. The replacing of clear, cool, rational,\nanalytical language in high places with all kinds of generally\nself\u2011serving jargon has produced a very different sense of\npublic authority, secular and religious. We have lost a sense of\nauthority as it was practised, acknowledged and accepted in the past.\n This has been replaced by something that looks far more like a\nmarketplace of various competing interests. I think there is a\nneed to recognise the complexities at work, not simply within the\npublic mind \u2013 if we can understand that in any way \u2013 but also\nwithin the realms of authority we have inherited. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nother thing I would say is that those who hold public office, whether\necclesiastical or secular, must recognise that, if Empiricism is a\nfundamental basis of credible authority of any kind, authority may be\nfound across society in many different forms, many of them actually\nquite disempowered. The ability of the Church to recognise the\nauthority of intellectual experience and understanding is, to my\nmind, a primary danger at this present moment. Those who might have\nvery real authority through their learning and all kinds of things\nthat come from that may, by virtue of the fact that they are lay\npeople rather than clergy, or people of different faiths or of none,\nbring into doubt at some point the real credible authority claimed by\nthose in high places. I think it is very easy to nominate\nexamples of that. I will leave you to do that for yourselves. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE REVD FR PETER ALLAN<\/strong>: I would like to come back, after Andrew\u2019s very important remarks about the dismissing of that careful, learnt, wise reflection, to Bishop Martin\u2019s comment about commodification. I remember John Muddiman4<\/sup><\/a> years ago talking about the importance of truth and the scriptural tradition as coming essentially from the Hebrew understanding, where truth is personal, and that authority is something which we recognise in a person. That can only be the fruit of careful life together. Again, it is that attending to one another. A former Superior of Mirfield said: \u2018The trouble with being the superior of this community is you have no sanctions\u2019. Well, that may be true, but it did not mean he had no authority. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

FROM\nTHE FLOOR<\/strong>:\n I have an observation on the subject of the authority of Tradition\n(with a capital \u2018T\u2019). I have found it helpful to talk to people\nabout tradition in the sense of solidarity with the past, and the\nhistoric tradition (with a small \u2018t\u2019) of the Church. We do not\nhave to do all of this stuff for the first time. That sense of\nsolidarity and inheritance sometimes helps with the question of the\nauthority of tradition. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n Let me go on to what is, I think, a related question, which perhaps\nCally might want to pick up first. It is this question: \u2018Do\nthe speakers agree that there is a split between university theology\nand the life of dioceses and parishes? If so, how do we correct\nthis?\u2019<\/strong>\n We might expand that to a split between theology itself and the life\nof dioceses and parishes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD DR CAROLYN HAMMOND<\/strong>:\n I will give it a go. I suppose one of the advantages of working in\nthe university, but also having been a parish priest first, is that\nbeing a parish priest gives you a really powerful training in being\nintelligible \u2013 because if you\u2019re not, your church will empty. I\nwas talking to my old doctoral supervisor, Chris Pelling, when\nthey were appointing a new Dean for Christ Church in Oxford. He was\nsaying that some people said it was time to make the job lay, but\nothers were not so sure. One of the reasons they were not sure was\nbecause, at least if you are appointing a clergy person, your chances\nare quite good that it is somebody who is trained and experienced in\nthe art of talking to everybody. I think one of the key things about\ngood theology of any kind is that it is comprehensible. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This makes me think about Jane Austen\u2019s line: \u2018I can\u2019t speak well enough to be unintelligible\u2019.5<\/sup><\/a> I am quite keen on theology that makes sense and has clear parameters, rather than collapsing everything into the category of the numinous. The sort of thing that makes my heart sink is when I hear, \u2018Well, everything is theology\u2019 \u2013 which is the same as saying that nothing is. I am quite keen on the idea that theology is a rigorous academic discipline taught in our universities \u2013 obviously in lots of universities, not just Oxbridge \u2013 but is also something that everybody in the Church ought to be educated to do. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\nsaid earlier that the students that I encounter start with almost no\ntheology. They are quite likely to know what they are against,\nbecause they have been taught to be against things as well as for\nthem, just as they have politically; but they are not very likely to\nhave a developed idea of their understanding of God, or the\nrelationship of God the Father to God the Son, never mind the Holy\nSpirit. You can teach people that; but the most important thing is\nto teach it in a way which, if they are training for an academic\nlife, enhances their ability to teach others and to understand a\nthing in its own terms. From the point of view of coming to chapel\nor something like that, you ought to be able to communicate the\ndeeper truths of theology in a way that makes a difference to how\npeople live as Christians. Otherwise, it is just pointless. What is\nit for<\/em>\nif it does not make us better disciples? So I think that, whatever\nelse theology is, it has to be comprehensible, and able to be put\ninto practice. It has to issue in a life that is more Christ-like. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\npersonally am a bit allergic to theology where you have to read a\nsentence ten times to understand it, and even after ten goes you\nthink, \u2018Well, I\u2019m not quite sure what we\u2019ve got here,\u2019 \u2013\nand then the same thing happens in the next sentence, and you lose\nheart after half a page. I find that demoralising. I would like to\nthink I am quite clever; but if I cannot read more than a page\nof that stuff, there comes a point when I think, \u2018You know what\u2026.\u2019\n It is like those books you buy and you think to yourself, \u2018Well, I\nonly paid \u00a33 for this. If I don\u2019t like it I\u2019m not going to\nfinish it.\u2019 You give it back to the next jumble sale, like the one\nyou got it from. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So\nI think theology has to be a thing of clarity and simplicity that\nstands or falls in its own right, academically and intellectually \u2013\nbut also not just be about publishing books and training up future\ngenerations of academics. It has to issue in a fuller life in\nChrist. Otherwise it is worthless. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nRT REVD DR MARTIN WARNER<\/strong>:\n At our last clergy conference a couple of years ago, Stuart\nTownend came with his band to play, actually very beautifully, the\nmusic for one of the Eucharists. He gave us a big lecture\nbeforehand, saying that if we did not like all the words in all his\nhymns, we were not to change them because \u2018That is the theology\nthat I wrote in that hymn.\u2019 He also made a very strong case that\nthe things we sing actually teach us our theology. He was being\ncritical about the sort of worship songs where you say, \u2018O Jesus,\nyou\u2019re lovely,\u2019 and all of that, but there is nothing of\ntheological depth. I think the things we sing and the words we\nsay are formative of the theology and understanding of people in all\nsorts of contexts \u2013 people for whom words are not their first or\neasiest way of articulating their deepest feelings, people who need\nother outlets. It is important to see that formative processes are\nnot only courses run by the diocese. They are also the processes of\nprayer \u2013 or should be. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD DR ANDREW DAVISON<\/strong>:\n Although there have been some expressions of disappointment about\nthe relationship between theology and the Church, I think it is a\nmulti-dimensional picture. I have ample evidence that there are\nplenty of people and clergy across parishes who are desperately into\ntheology, and for whom it is the wellspring of their faith. I have\nfantastic conversations with people when I go around preaching. \nFurthermore, I would say that in my own faculty \u2013 despite the fact\nthey are almost all lay appointments now, whereas they would once\nhave been Canons of Ely \u2013 there is still passionate concern for the\nChurch and the needs of the Church and for people out there\npreaching. In both of those ways, I think the connection is perhaps\nmore healthy than we might think. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\na way, the Research Excellence Framework of the Government does not\nhelp. You ask yourself, \u2018How many of the works of Barth or\nHans Urs von Balthasar would pass muster in the\nResearch Excellence Framework?\u2019 It creates pressure to publish a\ncertain kind of very guild-like book \u2013 and popular things do not\ncount. On the other hand, what it takes away with one hand it gives\nwith the other \u2013 this ever-increasing interest in\nimpact \u2013 so the handful of people in the faculty every\nyear\/every cycle who are put forward as having had an impact with\ntheir theology in liturgical practice or public understanding or\npolitics are praised to the rafters. In that way, the Government,\nI think, pushes it both ways. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\nsuppose we might be disappointed in the role of theology in the\ncorridors of power. The Templeton Foundation sponsored somebody\nwhose role it was to represent theology and science in Church House\nfor a three\u2011year period. It looked for a while as if the\ntheology and science resourcing in that building was more supportive\nthan all the rest of theology put together. That is not a happy\nobservation. One of the prominent people who has a theological role\nin Church House was preaching at a service \u2013 I was not there,\nbut had friends there \u2013 and he described himself as \u2018a church\nbureaucrat\u2019. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nGreen Report [Talent\nManagement for Future Leaders and Leadership Development for Bishops\nand Deans: A New Approach<\/em>\n\u2013 Report of the Lord Green Steering Group, September 2014]: \nI think what this eventually produced \u2013 the learning community \u2013\nis probably much better than what many of us feared; but the Wizard\nof Oz curtain was pulled back when that document was leaked and we\nsaw the kind of argument that carried weight. If that had been put\nforward as a master\u2019s level piece of work, I would have failed\nit. There were even such comments as: \u2018Well, of course this won\u2019t\npass muster, but we\u2019ll come up with some way of describing it when\nit goes public.\u2019 I found that deeply depressing. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nthe parishes, and also in the life of academics, there is a lot that\nis really helpful; but in what sets the tone from the centre \u2013\nwhich I must always remind myself is not the Church: the Church is at\nthe coalface: the parishes, the chaplaincies and all the rest \u2013\nthat, I think, is in a perilous state. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD CANON DR ROBIN WARD<\/strong>:\n I want to follow up what Andrew has already expressed about the\nguild characteristic of much that is written in academic theology\njust now. What is privileged in a commodified world of\nhumanities research, which earns money \u2013 is monographs no one\ncan afford, and journal articles that no one reads. Neither of those\nthings really fits with the way parish clergy want to encounter and\nkeep up their reading in theology. I think there is a crisis about\nthat in terms of how universities teach and learn the humanities, and\nstudy the humanities, as much as there is a disconnect between\nuniversities and the Church. I think one of the ways in which there\nis need for reform is the way in which universities produce so much\nstuff that is read by so few people. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD FR PETER ALLAN<\/strong>:\n I would like to add one word. One of the consequences of the way\nour attention to the academic sphere of theology has changed has been\na downplaying of the theological articulacy of the lay people of the\nChurch. It has been for me quite shocking to hear senior members of\nthe Church\u2019s councils saying: \u2018I\u2019m not a theologian.\u2019 It is\nclear that this is something we have gradually lost. In the 1950s,\nyou could expect Anglicans to have the elements of a systematic\ntheology which was coherent, and which sustained them. It was not\nacademic theology, but it was itself supported by, and in\nconversation with, academic theology. It is this loss and\nbreakdown that most troubles me. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DR\nANDREW CHANDLER<\/strong>:\n I think what has happened within university theology and religious\nstudies departments is rather a story in its own right. I think most\nof them have lost that sense of historical basis which gave them the\ncoherence they once enjoyed, and made them more easily recognisable\nto people elsewhere. This is something that needs to be borne in\nmind. One never really quite knows today what a theology or\nreligious studies department is going to have as its substance. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\nthink the idea that we are caught up in a publishing culture, which\nis constructed around all kinds of objects which are valued by\nresearch assessment exercises, is entirely right. I think Robin said\nit absolutely clearly. There is no question of it. But I think it\nis also very important to acknowledge that those of us who have tried\nto write for a wider public have found it increasingly difficult to\nfind a publisher who can make a living out of selling<\/em>\nsuch books to such a general public. There has been, I think\nquite clearly, a tragic decline in the wide public culture of reading\nthat existed across the churches only thirty or forty years ago. \nThink of all the publishing houses that have simply disappeared over\nthe last thirty years, and you will realise that a great deal of\nground has shifted, and that it\u2019s very, very hard to reach it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\nwould also say that, as a lay person, I find it hard to accept that\nclergy have an ability to talk comprehensively to the public in a way\nthat the laity do not. I wish I could say that there was far more in\nmy experience to contradict that apprehension; but, frankly, there is\nnot. We need to acknowledge that the public, whether it is in church\non a Sunday morning or not, does have an appetite for ideas, does\nwish to be fed, and that the homiletic tradition of Anglicanism is,\nfrankly, by and large pretty poor. The decline of sermons within\nBritish Christianity today is quite palpable. We need to\nrecognise that many people who go to church, maybe for the first\ntime, still find it is the sermon that gives them their essential\npoint of contact with what is going on, whereas they may find the\nliturgical formulations obscure, if not altogether difficult. So I\nam absolutely democratic. I think people are ready for ideas, they\nare interested in ideas, and that ideas can be articulated clearly\nfor a wide public by anybody. That is something that must be borne\nin mind. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FROM\nTHE FLOOR<\/strong>:\n I would like to follow up on something that Fr Peter said, but\nwhich I think relates very much to each contribution. It is the lack\nof confidence today in transmitting the faith. I think it is very\ndisturbing that we see vast numbers of parents who are\ndisinclined and frightened and loath to try to teach the simple\ntruths about the Christian faith to their children. This is actually\npart of a wider problem. I think it is very telling that when Karl\nBarth was asked if he could sum up his Church\nDogmatics<\/em>,\nhe said: \u2018Jesus loves me. This I know, because the Bible tells me\nso.\u2019 I think some of the means by which we encourage people to\nfind confidence to share the transmission of the faith, moving out of\nexclusive academic theological circles, moving beyond church\nleaders feeling they have be the principal sources of articulation,\nwill be very telling. Bishop Martin was talking earlier about\njoyfully sharing the fullness of the Catholic faith. We should see\nthis as a crucial task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FROM\nTHE FLOOR<\/strong>:\n I wonder whether it is ever likely to be possible that the Church\nwill create posts in parishes and dioceses for lay people or clergy\nwho have an interest in doing theology for the parish or the diocese,\nwho are not called to specific theological research but have a broad\nor general theological and Biblical interest, as displayed by many of\nthe contributors to that Catholicity<\/em>\nReport. Many of them are generalists, such that you would not find\nin universities these days, I suspect, because of increasing\nspecialisation; but if you could create posts in parishes, deaneries,\ndioceses or wherever for people to pursue this specific vocation of\ndoing theology for the Church \u2013 where they could be in contact with\nuniversities, yes, but where these kinds of issues could begin to be\nresolved \u2013 is that ever likely to be possible? \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n Actually, may I answer that? Because I think it is possible, even\nnow. I have had four clergy in the last four years who have\ndone doctorates in parishes in the diocese of Norwich. None of these\nare theological. They are mostly historical or related to music. \nThese are things which feed them, I think, as human beings and\nacademics. It is quasi-theological, but it is very interesting that\nnobody has asked me to do something like that theologically<\/em>\nfrom a parish. I wonder what this is about\u2026. But it is possible\nnow, really. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FROM\nTHE FLOOR<\/strong>:\n I am just thinking that one of the places where ideas are discussed\nand shared, particularly amongst younger people, is the internet. It\nis generally free. It is democratic. It is where young people\ndebate ideas. I think it has had a huge impact on the Church in\nterms of where people discover \u2013 or potentially lose \u2013 their\nfaith. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\nwas at Holy Cross, Cromer Street, the other week, where a number of\nmen in their twenties were getting confirmed. They had had no\ncontact with the Church previously, but they had been drawn in by the\nTwitter account of a guy on the PCC there, who is around 25 years\nold, where he discusses Christianity and faith. I am just wondering\nhow you harness this. I think it has huge potential. You do not\nhave to pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On\nthe point about words: I had to write an article for a political\nmagazine this week on the Reformation. It was for a non-Christian\naudience, and I was not sure that people would understand many of the\nwords I wanted to use. I do not think people know what grace is,\nwhat sin is, what salvation means. I was really struck with how even\nto use those words can be problematic. Maybe Cally could comment on\nstudents from a non\u2011church background and whether, even if\nwe use those words on the internet, people even know what they mean. \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD DR CAROLYN HAMMOND<\/strong>:\n Just to pick up on some of the threads that are now starting to\nemerge, I think there is a big problem simply with the word\n\u2018theology\u2019. For me, it goes right back to the first time I\nencountered my chaplain at Oxford as an undergraduate. The first\nquestion he asked me was: \u2018What is your theology?\u2019 I said:\n\u2018I haven\u2019t got a theology. I\u2019m a Christian. What does\nthat mean?\u2019 I still struggle with it to some extent, because it\nseems to me we are at a point in the life of this nation now where\nthe word \u2018theology\u2019 has almost come to mean sophistical and\nincomprehensible. When people say, \u2018Oh, that\u2019s too theological,\u2019\nwhat they really mean is, \u2018That makes no sense at all.\u2019 The\nfirst job, therefore, is going to be recovering a positive meaning of\nthe word \u2018theology\u2019. I do not think we can do that by defining\nit better \u2013 see previous discussions about words. I think we have\nto do it by doing<\/em>\nit better. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For\nme, that means the kind of theology Andrew was referring to just now,\nwhich people are hungry for \u2013 but probably not sitting around, as\nthe early Christian Fathers did, trying to work out exactly how the\nFather related to the Son. In other words, trying to use the best\nintellectual criteria in a pre-scientific society, they had to define\na problem which is fundamentally a problem about physics, about\nmatter. They did not have the intellectual tools for this, and\ntherefore went up fifty blind alleys at the same time and made us all\nafraid of doing theology. Theology has to be things that answer the\nquestions people you are talking to are interested in, such as \u2018Why\nam I here?\u2019 and \u2018If God exists, does he give a damn about me?\u2019 \nI think those are questions that proper theologians can help us all\nto answer. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\nam a bit scared of the internet generation stuff, because I find the\nwhole business of social media quite stressful and intimidating. The\nthought of somebody saying to me, \u2018Will you be my friend?\u2019 and me\npressing a button that says, \u2018No, I don\u2019t want to be\u2019 \u2013 I\njust can\u2019t go there. It is too hard. So I am not even on\nFacebook; but I am jolly glad that other people are. I probably pick\nup some of the results of what other people are doing on the\ninternet. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\noften find \u2013 it is true for me and I am sure is true for many of us\nhere on the panel \u2013 that we come into most people\u2019s\nChristian vocation a few steps down the line. Somebody else has done\nthe hard work, somebody else has had the initial conversation, so\nthat, by the time they get to university or theological college, they\nare ready to ask that big next question that is really on their\nminds. I think it is quite important not to feel too personally\nresponsible for other people\u2019s development in the faith, but just\nto play the part that God sticks in front of us and to trust him. I\nthink that kind of works. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n Can I move us on? There is another question someone has asked,\nwhich I think is well related to theological education within\nthe Church generally: \u2018Do\nwe need a new and adequate catechism for lay people in the Church of\nEngland more generally and, if so, how might Anglican\u2011Catholics\nhelp in that enterprise?\u2019 <\/strong>\nAndrew, would you like to have a go at that to start us off? \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD DR ANDREW DAVISON<\/strong>:\n I have lost count of the number of copies I have given away of the\nCatechism\nof the Catholic Church<\/em>.\n I give it to people and say, \u2018I think this is about ninety-five\nper cent right, and the five per cent that I don\u2019t agree with is so\nobvious that I\u2019ll trust you,\u2019 although I think that five per\ncent is shrinking the longer I live. I say that seriously. \nThis is a truly extraordinary document. It is a gift to the whole\nChurch. We do not push the catechism that we have, so it is partly a\nmatter of culture. When the Renewal and Reform thing was put\nforward, catechism and apologetics were part of the picture. It\nseems to have dropped completely off of the radar. Maybe we do need\na new initiative. It would be interesting to think what sort of\nshape it would take and whether, today \u2013 for some people \u2013\nvideos, podcasts, that sort of thing, would be more useful than a\ndocument. To be honest, I think if we tried at the moment to write\nsomething that we agreed on, it would be lowest common denominator\nstuff and would not be very impressive. So I think I will carry on\ngiving out the Catechism\nof the Catholic Church<\/em>.\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD DR CAROLYN HAMMOND<\/strong>:\n I want to say one brief thing about the Catechism of the Catholic\nChurch, which I, too, think is absolutely splendid. I think it is\nincredibly useful in all kinds of teaching contexts, but I have one\ncaveat. If you go to the back of the edition that I have and look up\nthe word \u2018Women\u2019, the index says: \u2018See Men\u2019. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD CANON DR ROBIN WARD<\/strong>:\n My understanding of why the process of revising the Catechism that\ncame out of Reform and Renewal has not got anywhere is because the\nlawyers said that, because there is a Catechism in the Prayer Book,\nit has to be treated as liturgical business. This means it has sunk\nwithout trace. I think this is rather indicative of some of the\nproblems that we face in these matters. But I agree with you\nwholeheartedly. Compendium\nof the Catechism<\/em>,\nthe little book, which I think is really excellent as well \u2013\nthat, and the Catechism<\/em>, have\nalmost obviated the need for anything else. All you need to do is\nsay, \u2018These bits you need to treat in a more nuanced way if you\nwant to have a happy life in the Church of England,\u2019 but the rest I\njust take straightaway. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD FR PETER ALLAN<\/strong>:\n One rather dreads finding a student essay that puts the Catechism\nof the Catholic Church<\/em>\nin the bibliography. It happens not infrequently \u2013 but it is an\nexcellent document. There is a parallel, of course, between a\ncatechism and the rule of a religious community, which is to say that\nboth are a distillation of a life lived. There is a sense in which\nyou earn your right to a rule out of the experience of living it, so\nit is important to know what it is that we want the catechism for<\/em>.\n It cannot be created in order to try to put a new lively church in\nplace. It is a good kind of trellis to help you grow, once you have\nhad some experience of living. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n Can we go on to another? This is an interesting question: \u2018What\nwe need is a fresh appraisal of reformed Catholicism\u2019<\/strong>.\n This was Eric Abbott\u2019s response to not getting an answer out of\nMichael Marshall to the question, \u2018What is Catholic renewal?\u2019 Any\ncomments? \u2018A fresh appraisal of reformed Catholicism\u2019. Does\nanybody on the panel believe in that? \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nRT REVD DR MARTIN WARNER<\/strong>:\n I think that was yesterday. This is today. The capacity for\nnavel-gazing is enormous, really: speaking to ourselves and thinking\nwe are doing something important. There is a world which has not\nheard the good news of Jesus Christ. I think we do not need to\nworry about some of these details, frankly. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n In which case, let me go on to another question that has been asked,\n\u2018How\nmight the explored Charismatic experience of Roman Catholics and\nAnglicans in the 1970s, and indeed much later, relate now to\n<\/strong>Catholicity<\/strong><\/em>?\u2019<\/strong>\n There is no doubt that Charismatic renewal does bring together\ndifferent traditions. St Stephen\u2019s House is full of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD CANON DR ROBIN WARD<\/strong>:\n Bishop Martin mentioned earlier Chemin\nNeuf<\/em>.\n I am chemin\nvieux<\/em>\nreally! I am the \u2018before\u2019 in the \u2018before-and-after\u2019\nillustration of being touched by Charismatic renewal. I served my\nsecond curacy, which is itself an old-fashioned thing, under a person\nwho was very involved with the Anglo\u2011Catholic Charismatic\nmovement as it then existed. Particularly in London, one thinks of\nchurches like St Joseph the Worker, Northolt, which had a long\ntradition of that. I would say it is almost vanishingly marginal\namongst those now coming to train at St Stephen\u2019s House, not\nthrough any sort of reverence for me, but I think because most people\nare more interested now in a theology of retrieval. As Andrew said\nearlier, there is a sense of wanting to recover the liturgical and\ntheological inheritance of the Church in its fullness; and that\nCharismatic renewal, although useful for a time in breaking out of\nwhat had been a rather sort of hidebound 1950s Integrism, is perhaps\nless necessary and less potent now than it was then. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nRT REVD DR MARTIN WARNER<\/strong>:\n I think one of the interesting things about the Charismatic movement\nis that it can be shown to be a response to a deficit of our\nattention to the work of the Holy Spirit. I would be more interested\nin looking at a fresh understanding of pneumatology and the role of\nthe Spirit in the life of the Church. One of the frustrating things\nabout the recent death of Bishop Geoffrey Rowell is that he was\nexploring the pneumatology of Manning in his sermons through his\nAnglican phase and into his Roman Catholic phase, and how that shaped\nhis subsequent theology. I think we in the West are generally a bit\nweak on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and pneumatology, and I would\nbe interested to see more theological work done on how the Spirit\nlives in the church \u2013 which is not necessarily the same as the\naffective and \u2018signs-and-wonders\u2019 aspect of Charismatic renewal. \nI think it could be a decent follow-on from that revival. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n \u2018How\ndo we engage with the significant doubts of a large proportion of the\npopulation without seeming condescending or triumphalist?\u2019<\/strong>\nThe significant doubts of a large proportion of the population. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD DR CAROLYN HAMMOND<\/strong>:\n I will give it a go if nobody else is talking! \u2018With humility\u2019\nis a good start. One of the things I say to students when they come\nto Caius is: \u2018This community of Christians is a place where there\nis no question that cannot be asked, and that includes questions\nabout God\u2019s existence and whether he cares and all the kinds of\ndoubt that most of us live with and few of us admit to.\u2019 I think\nif Christians are going to engage with people who have doubts and\ndisbelief \u2013 and this is speaking generally  \u2013 they\nshould begin by saying, \u2018Well, me too,\u2019 unless they are very rare\nand very lucky; but most of us are not. Just as we all know about\npeople like Mother Teresa, who \u2013 whilst they were alive looked\nlike they had a totally unshakeable faith and then turned out to have\nbeen wracked by doubt all through their lives but without their\nessential vocation and discipleship failing \u2013 so it is also true\nthat one encounters a lot of supposedly dyed-in-the-wool\nnon\u2011believers who have a secret, shameful temptation towards\nthe Church that they do not want anyone to find out about. Really,\nit is a classic case of a little bit of honesty going a long\nway. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DR\nANDREW CHANDLER<\/strong>:\n I think in some ways the vocabulary gives the game away, because to\nregard another person\u2019s way of thinking as doubtful is perhaps\nalready condescending in the first place. What we may be looking at\nis very different ways of thinking about many things altogether, not\nnecessarily one clearly coherent, identifiable capacity for doubting\nwhat is obvious or held by us. So things may have gone a good deal\nfurther in that sense than we may wish to acknowledge. The thing\nthat often seems to me to be fundamental in this sense \u2013 and it\nrefers a little to the last two questions as well \u2013 is the\npriority we give the system, whether we call it theological,\nintellectual or whatever, in all of these things, and our present\nweakness in citing human example. I think it is at least\narguable that something we might call Christian humanism has\nbeen declining in the Church, alongside many other things. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nreason I mention this is that, if we were to ask where some sense of\nbelief really comes from, it is often found in the way people\nexperience somebody else who may not even talk about religion, who\nmay not even talk about faith or doubt, or use that kind of\nvocabulary at all, but who seems to embody, to make manifest,\nsomething that is recognisably interesting and important. I suspect\neverybody in this room has seen examples of people known to them\nmoving to various conditions and states of faith in quite\nunacknowledged ways, ways that are not verbally communicable at all,\nbecause of the example of someone who has been dear to them, someone\nwho has in various ways impressed them. I therefore think that,\nwhether we are talking about the possibilities of technology,\nrewriting catechisms, or anything else, we have to recognise the\ntremendous fragility of language, the vulnerability of any kind of\nsystematising scheme of knowledge, and the ongoing eloquence \u2013\noften of a surprising nature \u2013 of human example as we might\nencounter it in any context at all. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n Thank you, Andrew. We are coming to the end, but there is one final\nquestion I want to give space to: \u2018If\nwe were to have more symposia, what would our speakers like to see\ndiscussed?\u2019<\/strong>\n The Society of the Faith seems to have so much cash that we could\nhave endless symposia! What would you like to see discussed, to\nfollow this up with?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD FR PETER ALLAN<\/strong>:\n You will not be surprised from what I said this morning that I would\nvery much welcome an engagement from a Catholic perspective with\ntheological anthropology, and an engagement with social anthropology\nas we are experiencing it at the moment \u2013 and doing that in tandem\nwith a recovery of our appreciation of the sacramental economy. I\nthink those two things are enormously important, and we would find\nourselves very quickly having to engage with a classic bit of\nAnglican concern \u2013 the doctrine of the Incarnation \u2013 because I\nthink our relationship to the Incarnate Lord is necessarily changing\nas we experience the withering of the significance of the human\nbeing. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD DR ANDREW DAVISON<\/strong>:\n I spoke at the end of my talk about the importance of extending the\nCatholic tradition to those who would be open to it, especially\namongst our Evangelical brothers and sisters. Whether that would\ninvolve, in the first instance, a discussion amongst ourselves about\nhow that could be done, or might be something that was a\nshowcase \u2013 \u2018Everything you always wanted to know about\nAnglo-Catholicism but were afraid to ask\u2019\u2026. That would be a good\nangle. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then\nthere\u2019s this thing about lay knowledge of the faith. At the end of\nthe day, it is the people in offices and going about their daily life\nwho are asked difficult questions about the faith. I think we are in\na bad state in terms of people being able to feel confident. \n\u2018Richard Dawkins says such-and-such. What do you think?\u2019 \nResponding to that stuff is actually like shooting fish in a barrel,\nI think, but people are on the back foot. There is no substitute for\na confident, engaged and open sense of the faith as a whole. \nConfidence is so important \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nRT REVD DR MARTIN WARNER<\/strong>:\n I would like something on Mary, because I think this opens up\nsomething about the nature of the Incarnation and also something\nabout grace and salvation. It opens up questions about human\nidentity, gender differentiation and the power that is held by\npeople in terms of how we actually inhabit this embodied existence. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD DR CAROLYN HAMMOND<\/strong>:\n I agree with that. I would make it both more specific and more\ngeneral, and say that what we need is to extend the debate into \u2018What\nis the point of Christian worship?\u2019 I think that is where many\npeople are most mystified. They know they want to do it, they know\nthey enjoy it when they get there, but they have no idea what the\npoint is and how they can make sense of it to themselves and to other\npeople. It is almost impossible to explain to people what you get\nout of worship unless they have experienced it for themselves. I\nthink that is possibly because we do not always understand how it\ntouches and affects us, which makes us quite bad at advertising its\nwonders to people who are really quite hungry for it, but perhaps\nwithout realising that. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD CANON DR ROBIN WARD<\/strong>:\n I think it would be very beneficial to have a symposium on\npneumatology, from three points of view. First, I think we are in\ngrave danger of selling our inheritance for a mess of pottage. In\necumenical conversations we are adopting anti-Filioquist agreements\nwith churches on a very unsound theological basis. Second, I think\nthat the very rich doctrine of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the\nWestern tradition is being overlooked. When people talk about\npneumatology, they always think: \u2018Oh, well that means Eastern\npeople. We\u2019ll go and talk to them about it. They \u201cdo\u201d the\nHoly Spirit, not us.\u2019 We have an extremely rich teaching which is\noverlooked, which plays into the discipleship agenda in terms of the\nascetics of the Christian life, and growth in the Christian life and\nthe moral life. Third, I think a pneumatological symposium would\nalso consider how the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. What\ndo we mean when we say our decisions are guided or guaranteed by the\nHoly Spirit? Perhaps we also need some discussion about\ninfallibility, because what we have not touched on today is how we\nsee the teaching of the Church as reliable. Can we see some sense\nin which the visible church teaches with authority? \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DR\nANDREW CHANDLER<\/strong>:\n Of course I work in a university, so I am an incorrigible\nspecialist, although I recently saw a job advertised for a part-time\nlectureship in the history of the Universe, which gave me some hope! \nActually, for me, perhaps the best way of thinking about it is to\nthink about Catholicity<\/em>.\n I was very hesitant about accepting the very kind invitation to\nthis Symposium, but I realised that one needs such invitations. \nSomething that makes you think about things you do not think about\nall the time, or have to think about as part of your work, is a very\ngood intellectual discipline in itself. It is a very good human\nthing, too. So my starting point would be basically something that\ncan turn us all in a different direction. This is always to be\nvalued, because of course there is always the danger that without\nthis we will end up talking about ourselves. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*\t\t*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n Thank you. I am going to draw us to a close and, on your behalf,\nexpress enormous gratitude to our six speakers, not least for this\nlast hour. One of the things I will take away from today occurred to\nme when Andrew was speaking about the plenitude of God, which I think\nis a wonderful phrase. As he was exploring the whole idea of\nparticipation in the life of God, it struck me that one difference\nbetween myself and other Christians \u2013 and many other people in\nsociety \u2013 is that I see God as expanding my mind, my heart, my\nsoul, making me a bigger person than I think I am. Often, when I am\nin secondary schools and have a sort of \u2018Grill the Bishop\u2019\nsession with the Sixth Form \u2013 which is really pretty\nfrightening \u2013 they see the God they do not believe in as\nnarrowing down life, creating a set of rules you have to live within.\n Actually trying to communicate a sense that God is as amazing, and\nas large as He is, is very difficult. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\nstrikes me that this is the glory of the Catholic tradition: that you\nare continuously expanded in your mind, your heart, your soul,\nexploring the tradition as we have received it \u2013 which of course\nenables you to become more speculative in your theology, because your\nbase is so sound in terms of worship and prayer and belief in the\nChurch. So I think \u2013 I hope \u2013 that what we have done today will\nbe immensely worthwhile, not just for those of us who have had the\nprivilege of participating, but in relation to what may come from it.\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\nhave had a really hard worker. I do not what that disease you get\nwhen you are in front of a screen and type all day long, but I just\nhope you do not suffer from it. You have been the deacon to us today\nand we are very grateful to you. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SHORTHAND\nWRITER<\/strong>:\n Thank you. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nCHAIRMAN<\/strong>:\n I am very grateful to all of you for participating in this\nSymposium. We will ponder whether this is the first of others, but\nwe do hope something valuable will come from today. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE\nREVD STEPHEN TUCKER<\/strong>:\n You have thanked all participants; but may I, on behalf of the\norganising group, thank you, Bishop Graham, for the way in which you\nhave introduced the day and summed it up. Whilst speaking\npersonally, rather than on behalf of the group, I do hope that if we\nhave other symposia, or a symposium, that you will come and be our\nchair. It has been an enormously fruitful day. May I also thank\nRobert Gage, who has been chair of the organising group and who has\ndone an immense amount of practical work, together with Margery\nRoberts, Secretary of the society of the Faith. Without them, this\nday would not have happened, and so our thanks should be expressed to\nthem as well. (Applause<\/em>)\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE CHAIRMAN<\/strong>: To close, we have the Bishop of Southwark with us. Bishop\u00a0Christopher, if you would come and give us God\u2019s blessing, we would appreciate that enormously. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Footnotes<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.<\/em> Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self<\/em>, Harvard University Press 1989.<\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.<\/em> Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism<\/em>, Allen Lane 2014.<\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.<\/em> A Baptist foundation.<\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.<\/em> The Revd John Muddiman, G. B. Caird Fellow in New Testament Theology at Mansfield College Oxford, 1990 \u2013 2012.<\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.<\/em> Northanger Abbey<\/em>, Chapter 16.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Martin and Andrew, for a wonderful afternoon. Where you have finished is where I hope we can pick up in the discussion. You will be aware that we hope as a result of today to produce more than a report or an essay, but a book, and there will be a … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-122","page","type-page","status-publish"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/122\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":145,"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/122\/revisions\/145"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}