Are Catholic Bishops in the UK educated differently than Bishops in the US

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain has published a teaching document instructing the faithful not to trust the Bible too much. The declaration of the Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland is called The Gift of Scripture.
The document has come out right at the time when conservative religious figures are getting particularly active in the West, the USA first of all. Many faithful insist that the creation stories told in Genesis must be taught at schools together with Darwin's evolution theory. They believe that the world appeared according to God's conception.

The full article can be found at:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/16304_Bible.html

so any Bishops involved in teaching creationism literally are way off. The official catholic stance is not to be involved in science at all, but John Paul addressed a big conferance of biologists basically saying that evolution was solid. Even Pious before him ackowledged it as probably true, though Pious didn't like it, and John Paul was a big fan of it and other scientific theories.

I was just reading his statements at a conference of scientists, and about the stance of not dictating science, but letting science enrich faith. I am not a catholic though so I don't know the details.

Most Anglican clergy in the UK seem not to believe in god at all.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1679824,00.html

The article's estimate is about 300 clerics. Actually, since they use the word "doubt," I find that statistic very credible. Even the most devout Christian has doubts at times. Some have them often, some infrequently, some once or twice in a lifetime. But EVERYONE doubts, and I imagine that includes clergy, too.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

of course. It's something of a joke in the UK that the last thing you'd expect from a CofE vicar is profound religious belief.

The CofE is seen as the very epitome of limp-wristed, uncertain, dithering liberalism - the opposite of the fundamentalists we see in the US - and is the butt of many good natured jokes as a result.

I knew that Britain as a nation is not exactly devout.

Then again, after all those dreadful wars, can you blame it?

Perhaps the "soft" belief of the CofE is laced with caution -- they've seen the damage religious fervor can do.

religious fundamentalism before - the civil war, Oliver Cromwell and, to a lesser extent, the hypocritical canting of the Victorians.

The CofE is the official religion - it is part of the state organisation and is protected by law - and we have no such thing as separation of church and state in a formal way as you do.

The CofE really reflects society's attitudes - part of it is reactionary and fundamentalist but the vast bulk is tolerant, liberal and well-meaning. It was the christian organisations that mobilised 300,000 to march against world poverty in July and which have been the backbone of the 'Make Poverty History' campaign which has involved about 15 million people to different degrees in the past year (25-30% of the population).

Columnist Anna Quindlen put it best, I think: here in America, we have yet another uproar about a statue "weeping" real tears, yet thousands are still starving and homeless -- from Katrina alone. What would Jesus Do?

Could be exactly the same training but a different approach is appropriate.

The shrill screams of the bible-thumpers mainly falls on deaf ears. Previously catholic strongholds like Spain,Italy and Ireland have drifted away from the hardliners. Isolated cases of right-wing loonies trying to influence opinion and policy happen from time to time. As with the US the RW's claim to have massive grass roots support but wouldn't get airtime or coverage in the newspapers if they weren't payrolled by fat cats.

I don't pay attention to organised religion when it come to science, the vatican science council endorsed the 'Big Bang' theory shortly after publication but remained silent on advances that didn't agree with dogma.
After forcing Galileo to recant the inquisition (Ratzinger's old department before he became pope) finally got around to apologizeing for his treatment THIS CENTURY.

in Christianity's name, I don't blame them.

I always point to European history (I'm Catholic) as the reason why church and state should not mix.

It goes back to swelling immigrant populations, the liberal massive influence and secular materialism of America, the decline of all Europe, the better docility and control over the burgeoning poorer, missionary countries. In other words, the Vatican has long waged war against American influence by strangling the bishoprics in their cradle, educating, nurturing and appointing safe if not just safely dull conservatives who in turn control the seminaries, both quieting and dumbing down and sending signals out to prospective seminarians. Still, the relative dynamism and prosperity of the large American Catholic Church produces a lot of progressive, scholarly thought.

You need to see the sweep of history to understand how the Church works hard at hobbling its horses. Mainly, the middle ground thrives. That is where truth and science takes its stand with practical beatitude faith. If science seems to threaten some doctrinal loyalties and traditional thought their is friction, which often reveals a personal prejudice toward smiting superstition or suppressing unwelcome scientific propositions. I think of the Biblical scholars who are more discouraging than jealous atheists on fire for justice. I have heard the former despair of being certain of any of the words of Jesus being genuine or understood in context while the latter in actuality defend the Spirit of Christianity while shredding established religion like a Xmas tree mulcher.

It is not the ideas but the political turmoil that makes the dynamic so turbulent and divisive. And it is the actions of those who defend the "truth" that are more important than the words themselves. A mirror (looking into darkly, even) wouldn't hurt anymore than humble compassion among people of good will.

The Catholic Church(and most mainstream faith organizations) as institution is ill equipped for radical crises and like a helpless, bargaining mother hen over its persecuted populations. The last line of defense, avoided not too wisely or too well, is always the cross, but perhaps it might be better to avail itself of better practice and progressive insight before the sheep get shorn again. Jesus was exceptionally, critically insightful, a fact often lost on a dull pack of latter-day fishermen. He had little interest in making dogmatic assumptions on things one simply couldn't know in practical experience or at the heart of spirituality. Usually he was completely at odds with those who did.

In the Roman Catholic, Episcopal (Anglican), and Eastern Orthodox churches, the first step in becoming a bishop is to be ordained a priest. (This was not true in the earliest years, but it has been for centuries.)

Bishops oversee a diocese (geographical area), so their numbers are necessarily limited. Becoming a bishop is therefore a kind of "promotion from the rank and file into management." The various churches differ on their procedures for filling vacancies, but in no case is special training required beyond the seminary training that all priests receive.