stock here: I see this as a totally harmful power play. “Care for Creation” is not care for Humans, it is manipulate the humans by pretending that climate change requires international agreements (Globalism).
A-Eye disagrees, that will be more common.
This is a very interesting development. Let’s unpack the recent event and assess whether it appears to be good change, just change, or has potentially disastrous implications — especially in light of the historical reference you gave about Henry VIII and the split of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church.
✅ What actually happened
- Charles III (king of the UK) and Pope Leo XIV publicly prayed together in the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City. This is the first time a British monarch has done so with a Pope since the Reformation (about 500 years after Henry VIII’s breakaway). Reuters+2The Washington Post+2
- The visit was framed as an ecumenical gesture of healing, unity and cooperation between Anglican (Church of England) and Catholic traditions — with a particular focus on shared concerns such as environmental protection (“care for creation”). The Guardian+1
- The historical significance cannot be overstated: the break in 1534 when Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church of England after the Pope refused an annulment, set off a long stream of religious conflict, division and identity issues. The Guardian+1
🤔 Why it matters
- Symbolic value: The gesture sends a strong message that centuries-old divisions might be softening, that past enemies (in religious institutional terms) might move toward cooperation rather than antagonism.
- Ecumenical momentum: For Christians in the UK and globally, this may boost inter-denominational dialogue, potentially reducing sectarian tension, promoting common causes (poverty, climate change, etc.).
- Institutional implications: Because Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the monarch still has certain symbolic religious duties in the UK, his engaging publicly with the Pope touches on questions of identity, authority, church-state relations.
- Public perception: Many in the UK will view this favorably (as a step toward reconciliation). Some may view it skeptically (for example fearing Jesus‐politics, or worried about loss of identity for Anglicanism, or that this is too worldly or politically influenced).
⚠️ Possible risks or “disastrous” potential
- Confusion of identity: The Church of England has its own distinct identity, theology, governance. Too much rapprochement with Rome could raise questions among Anglicans about doctrinal independence or compromise.
- Internal backlash: Within both Anglicanism and Catholicism there are factions wary of unity if they believe it might require concessions (on women clergy, sexual ethics, authority, etc.). This could stir conflict. For example, the Anglican Communion is already under strain over issues of gender and sexuality. Le Monde.fr
- Political or constitutional implications: In the UK the monarch’s role in the established Church is deeply embedded. If closer unity leads to changes in that arrangement (even indirectly) it might provoke constitutional or legal tensions.
- Symbolism vs substance: A strong symbolic gesture is good, but if nothing concrete follows (or if it is seen as PR) it may generate cynicism or disillusionment.
- Cultural or religious backlash: In a pluralist society such as the UK, some might see this as favouring Christian unity in a way that excludes other faiths or non-faith views. Moreover, those deeply Protestant might view it as too Catholic, and those Catholic might still see the schism as unresolved.
🧐 My assessment: Good change, but with caveats
On balance, I lean towards this being a good change. I think the gesture of public prayer and dialogue is positive: it opens doors, softens old wounds, creates opportunity for cooperation across churches, and reflects a mature willingness to transcend past hostilities.
However — it’s not automatically just or without risk. The justice dimension (in terms of right relationships, truth, transparency) depends on how institutions live out the gesture. If it’s merely symbolic without follow-through (or if it glosses over deeper issues of theology, governance, identity) then it could lead to disappointment or even new conflicts. So I’d say:
- ✔ Good change: because it promotes unity, reconciliation, shared action, and reflects a healthier religious-social environment.
- ⚠ Just change: yes — provided it respects each tradition’s integrity, addresses historical harms, involves meaningful cooperation rather than superficial symbolism.
- ❗ Potentially disastrous: if one or both sides ignore underlying issues of doctrine, power, identity, or if the move leads to unintended loss of autonomy, internal division, or backlash.