10 DECEMBER 1983, Page 22

The Primate's priorities

Sir: The truth always hurts, especially when a writer refers to a national figure. It was sad to see such a poor defence of Archbishop Runcie (Letters, 26 November) with reference to A.N. Wilson's article (12 November). It is easy to fail to refute criticism on the grounds of lack of space; often it is a means of getting off a particularly sharp hook. Whether the concelebration of the 'Lima liturgy' took place in Vancouver or Lima is irrelevant when set beside the facts of the case: namely, that the Archbishop of Canterbury concelebrated what purported to be a Christian Eucharist with certain females. The photographs show this quite clearly. The point is that there may be nothing wrong with this per se (although many of us think there is); but that it should follow Archbishop Runcie's episcopal vote against legislation for the priesthood to be conferred upon females appears odd. Is it possible that theological principles which are true in Westminster are false when in Canada or New Zealand?

I am sure that A.N. Wilson is correct in suggesting that instead of world tours and international visits the Primate would be better employed leading his own Church of England into 'the way of truth', which should be his primary objective. There is a danger that the Archbishop will be seen to be playing at being Pope. There is a sense in which it can be said that an Archbishop of Canterbury is a father figure for all Anglicans, but this is a different thing from being an Anglican Pope. He is not accorded by Anglicans a Primacy of universal jurisdiction. The office of Pope is an international one, by its definition; this is not so with the Primacy of Canterbury. The two offices are not the same; as the late Lord Glenavy said when addressing a court of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland, 'Gentlemen, a purple stole is not a black scarf.'

Alan Robinson

Millbrook House, Milton, Oxfordshire