COUGAR? I NEVER TOUCHED HER!

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 19 Comments

This is one of the reasons why I don’t drink in public.  People own cameras.

HAIR TRIGGER

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 19 Comments

Episcopalians seem a might touchy these days; just about anything can set them off.  Clifton Daniel, Bishop of East Carolina, writes the New York Times:

I take issue with some of the statements made in Deborah Solomon’s interview with Robert Duncan. First, the name of Duncan’s organization, the Anglican Church in North America, may confuse some readers. The organization is not a part of the Anglican Communion. Duncan left the Episcopal Church, which is a constituent part of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is the sole Anglican presence in the United States recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Two things, Clif.  Refresh my memory.  Bob Duncan attended the last Lambeth Conference, didn’t he?  Then that makes him an Anglican.  Why would Dr. Williams invite a non-Anglican to participate in Anglicanism’s most important meeting?  That makes no sense, Clif.  So by extension, that makes the church Duncan heads an Anglican church.

That’s how a great many Anglican churches around the world, all in communion with the see of Canterbury, view the situation anyway since they’ve recognized Duncan’s church while cutting ties to you.  To them, ACNA is the only Anglican presence in North America while your organization might as well throw in with the Unitarians and get it over with.

Second, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, whom Duncan refers to as “the least qualified, the least experienced of the candidates” for that position, was indeed the newest bishop among the candidates. She was certainly not the least qualified, however, as her capable leadership since becoming presiding bishop continues to amply demonstrate.

Cliffie?  I know you head the Peeb’s Council of Advice so you have to kiss ass but do you really want to dig up that rutabaga?  Mrs. Schori’s qualifications.  She never headed a parish.  She taught something or other at Big Mike’s Sports Bar, Grill and Theological Seminary or whatever that thing was called.

She hadn’t been Bishop of Nevada all that long and was taking that diocese straight into the tank anyway.  Clif, you and I both know she was an affirmative action hire.  A man with those “qualifications” would have been laughed out of the room and would never have made it into the field.

And if by “capable leadership,” you mean forcing a diocese to renege on a previously-agreed-to separation agreement and costing it millions of dollars in legal fees, spending millions more dollars for the noble goal of suing other Christians out of their meeting houses and breaking every canon in the book to depose bishops and establish “dioceses,” then I guess you’ve got me there, Bishop.

It’s just that watching alleged Christians act like particularly avaricious bullies isn’t a particularly edifying site.  And it certainly won’t make me take seriously whatever you have to say about God and His Son, well, ever again.

Third, Jefferts Schori, far from being unwilling “to bend or compromise,” as Duncan asserts, has maintained a steady commitment to the integrity of the Episcopal Church as well as to expanding its continuing dedication to feed the hungry, heal the sick, seek justice for the oppressed, respect the dignity of every human being and make the Episcopal Church “a house of prayer for all people.” All are welcome in the Episcopal Church; even Duncan, if ever he should choose to come home.

Nice of you to prove my point, Bishop  And I didn’t get you anything.  “A steady commitment to the integrity of the Episcopal [Organization]” is a wicked poor choice of words, Clif, because it tells me that the dwindling number of Episcopalians is going to have to shell out more and more money to pay Mrs. Schori’s lawyers.

Know something?  I don’t know anything about anything at all which is why I run one of these blog deals but I’m starting to think that maybe ACNA has, in fact, rattled TEO in a big way.  One lousy Bob Duncan interview and the head of the Council of Advice feels the need to dash off a letter to the editor.

That’s not the reaction of a church that doesn’t feel threatened.

WASHAWONAMOWACKAPEEPEE

Monday, November 23rd, 2009 | Uncategorized | 21 Comments

For the most part, we Midwesterners are an unoffending lot.  You may be looking for a fight but we’re not.  In fact, one of the rare times in American history that we got really angry led to the formation of the Republican Party.

All the same, there are, with us, some lines you had better not cross.

PREEMPTIVE SURRENDER

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009 | Uncategorized | 86 Comments

Quick question.  Is it possible to be any more clueless about Christianity than the Times of London?

The Vatican has mounted a direct challenge to the unity of the Anglican Communion. It established last month a new legal structure by which Anglicans may enter the Catholic Church. Traditionalist Anglicans, for whom the arrangement was designed, were delighted. But Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was treated unconscionably in the process. Dr Williams will meet Pope Benedict tomorrow in Rome. In the interests of his own authority and the integrity of the Anglican tradition, he should give the pontiff two clear messages.

First, the Anglican Communion is not an arrangement of convenience among disparate parties. In creating the new structure, known as an apostolic constitution, the Vatican acted precipitately. Second, there is an impeccable case for the Church to welcome women priests and homosexual clergy. On these issues that have sharply divided Anglicans, Dr Williams is clearly liberal by temperament. Stating that position openly, regardless of its effect on Anglican-Catholic relations, is overdue.

[Yesterday's] meeting should be the occasion for a tougher tone. The Vatican has driven a wedge into the Anglican Communion. The Pope’s decision has undermined Dr Williams’s authority. Dr Williams has made valiant attempts to keep Anglicans united, partly for the sake of relations with Rome. He should recognise when effort is unavailing. There is every good reason, in theology and natural justice, for the Church to embrace the ministry of women and homosexuals. Anglicanism will be richer for it. Dr Williams will be a bigger man for espousing it unreservedly.

I realize the hornet’s nest that will be stirred up by my bringing this topic up at all.  I also realize that I shall probably incur the wrath of the Prof with this assertion(we’ve been back and forth a time or two and, no doubt, will be again; it’s what we do) but I believe that a case can be made for women’s ordination.

That the Episcopal Organization didn’t think it necessary to offer one back in the 70′s is irrelevant; a case is still there.  But there’s one tiny problem with cases.

If I’m a lawyer, I can present what I wholeheartedly believe to be an impeccable case why my client is innocent of the crime of which he has been accused.  The problem is that the jury might not accept it.

Here’s the deal.  The fact that a Times of London leader has declared something an issue of “natural justice” does not make it one.  Most of Christianity has heard what arguments have been put forth for both women’s ordination and the ordained ministry of homosexuals and has rejected them.

Period.

Pope Benedict XVI is a realist, hence the Apostolic Constitution.  So I have to believe at this point that he has better relations with the Southern Baptists at the moment than with the Anglicans.  Because the Southern Baptists aren’t pretending to be something that they’re not.

UNACCEPTABLE PEOPLE

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009 | Uncategorized | 33 Comments

Patrick Kennedy keeps things classy:

Widening a growing rift, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat, said on Sunday that the Roman Catholic bishop of Providence had instructed him to refrain from receiving communion because of the congressman’s stance on abortion.

Rep. Kennedy said that Bishop Thomas J. Tobin “instructed me not to take communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me communion,” according to The Providence Journal, which first reported the article.

The Bishop added that his instructions to Rep. Kennedy came more than two years ago in a letter on February 21, 2007, he sent to the congressman privately and pastorally.

“In light of the Church’s clear teaching, and your consistent actions,” the letter said, “I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving Holy Communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so.”

The allegation by Rep. Kennedy, a Democrat in his eighth term, is the most recent escalation in a bitter and unusually personal dispute between the men that began after the lawmaker criticized the nation’s Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose an overhaul of the health care system unless it tightened restrictions on publicly financed abortion.

In an interview with Cybercast News Service on Oct. 21, Mr. Kennedy said he could not understand “how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time,” a reference to expanding health insurance, adding that its stance was fanning “flames of dissent and discord.”

In response, Bishop Tobin rebuked Mr. Kennedy, accusing him of “false advertising” for describing himself as a Catholic.

”If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things,” Bishop Tobin said at the time. “If you cannot do all that in conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else.”

Bishop Tobin had this to say.

I am disappointed and really surprised that Congressman Patrick Kennedy has chosen to reopen the public discussion about his practice of the faith and his reception of Holy Communion. This comes almost two weeks after the Congressman indicated to local media that he would no longer comment publicly on his faith or his relationship with the Catholic Church. The Congressman’s public comments require me to reply.

On February 21, 2007, I wrote to Congressman Kennedy stating: “In light of the Church’s clear teaching, and your consistent actions, therefore, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving Holy Communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so.” My request came in light of the new statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that said, “If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definite teachings on moral issues, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.” (Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper, December, 2006)

In the same letter I wrote to Congressman Kennedy, “I am writing to you personally and confidentially as a pastor addressing a member of his flock . . . At the present time I have no need or intention to make this a public issue.” I also indicated, “I am available to discuss this matter with you in person at any mutually convenient time and place. I would welcome the opportunity to do so.”

I have no desire to continue the discussion of Congressman Kennedy’s spiritual life in public. At the same time, I will absolutely respond publicly and strongly whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the Church, or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry. 

Just go Episcopalian, Kennedy, you jackass.  You know you want to. 

When you can count the good and decent members of your family on one hand, that’s a pretty solid indication that your family is one of the most repulsive anywhere.

IMPASSE

Friday, November 20th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 58 Comments

Recently, 148 Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and evangelical Protestant leaders signed a statement affirming, among other things, their firm and undying support for the unborn and for the institution of marriage as the Christian church has always understood it.  It’s quite long so I’m only going to quote some of it but read the whole thing:

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable. As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo- research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-twentieth century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro- life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

You get the idea.  You’ll recognize a lot of the names of the signers of this declaration.  Which I guess is why Jim Naughton went bat crap.

Chuck Colson seems to have been a driving force behind the statement. Mr. Colson used to beat up liberals for Richard Nixon. Now he beats them up for Jesus. All that has been baptized is his animus.

Animus, Jimmy?  Really?  I don’t see where you’re getting that unless you mean that my merely holding an orthodox Christian opinion means, a priori, that I “hate” you.

That’s a really stupid argument, Jim.

Says here, big smacker, that some of your “church’s” functionaries participated in a “prayer vigil” to get the current version of the Senate health care bill passed.  I have no idea what they were praying to but now’s not the time for that one.

Jim, you and I both know that anything that happens to escape the Congress will have a provision that will make abortions as available as teeth-cleanings at your dentist and will probably make me help pay for them. 

So why isn’t that an imposition on my conscience, Jim?  And why the animus against the unborn, tough stuff?  You used to be one, you know.

A bit further on, this d-bag asserts:

The statement conflates the civil and the religious where it suits, and demands separation where they feel the need. It speaks of a dignity of human beings that is infinite only in their terms and for their purposes. I find it especially interesting, for example, to hold up Biblical norms for marriage and at the same time challenge polygamy; because that was the Biblical norm. And the fact of the matter is that no one is asserting a civil right to multiparty marriage.

Yet.  Give ‘em time; the Adulterous-American community hasn’t gotten politically-organized and as far as I know, nobody’s even started on the “theology.”  Oh and dude?  “Polygamy…was the Biblical norm,” Gracie?  Did you recently get yourself a lid of high-grade Humboldt County chronic or something?

ATTENTION AL GORE, ROWAN WILLIAMS, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, LEONARDO DICAPRIO, SHERYL CROW, PRIUS DRIVERS, ETC.

Friday, November 20th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 32 Comments

Professional wrestling is fake:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet.

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

AND NOW…IDIOTS

Thursday, November 19th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 30 Comments

Would somebody please make him stop saying things about stuff?  Don’t call them higher taxes says Pointless-on-the-Thames.  Call them community improvement resources:

Dr Rowan Williams said that taxation should not be seen as a way of stifling business or redistributing wealth but helping to make the world a better place in which to live.

He called for new levies to be introduced on financial transactions and carbon emissions, and an end to the idea that unlimited economic growth is desirable.

And we can refer to all those people who will lose their jobs when all these higher taxes are imposed “the poor Jesus said we would always have with us.”

Dr Williams claimed that the “fantasies of unlimited growth” had led to a “vicious cycle” in which consumers are encouraged to buy more goods, which also uses up limited energy and raw materials.

So does operating cathedrals and Westminsters Abbey for next-to no worshippers.  Your point being?

Instead, he said the economy should be geared towards creating a secure and sustainable environment for families.

Tell you what, Your Grace. You and Mrs. Williams move out of Lambeth Palace and into a London flat and then lecture me about what the economy should be.

“It is of course connected with other proposals about currency exchange taxation – the ‘Tobin tax’ idea: the point is that we should be thinking about taxation neither as an unreasonable burden on enterprise nor as a simple mechanism of redistribution but as a potentially sophisticated tool for long-term ‘economy’ – housekeeping.

Oh “we” should, should “we?”  The way real life works, Your Grace, is that leftist governments like London and Washington view taxation as a “simple mechanism of redistribution.”  And they’ll continue to view it that way regardless of whatever smiley face you happen to put on it. 

Moving on to describe a “human life well-lived”, Dr Williams said: “If you live in a world where everything encourages you to struggle for your own individual interest and success, you are being encouraged to ignore the reality of other points of view – ultimately, to ignore the cost or the pain of others.

Oh for the love of…so you shouldn’t strive for the best possible life for yourself or your family because somebody somewhere might not have as good a life as you do? 

I work in a public library, Your Grace, I don’t get paid a lot of money, I live in an apartment and I basically live paycheck to paycheck.  I guess I should resent the hell out of my family and friends who live in big houses, can buy new cars once in a while and have lots and lots of money.

But you know what?  I don’t.  Know why that is?  Because neither the “economy” nor the “market” nor “big business” nor any of the other “forces” you’re been railing against lately put me where I am. 

I did.

Think you can determine what a “well-lived” human life is?  I’ve got news for you.  You can’t; no one can.  And Anglican archbishops who live in great big palaces should be the last people who even think about trying.

LA, LA, LA, LA, LA!!

Thursday, November 19th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 16 Comments

ROWAN WILLIAMS CAN’T HEAR YOU!!

Let me give an outline of what I want to say in the half an hour or so available.  The strong convergence in these agreements about what the Church of God really is, is very striking.  The various agreed statements of the churches stress that the Church is a community, in which human beings are made sons and daughters of God, and reconciled both with God and one another.  The Church celebrates this through the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion in which God acts upon us to transform us ‘in communion’.  More detailed questions about ordained ministry and other issues have been framed in this context.

Debatable.  If your Christian tradition allows a person into a position of church leadership who denies all tenets of the Christian faith(i. e. John Shelby Spong) and then makes no effort whatsoever to remove that man or even express a corporate rebuke of him, your alleged “agreement about what the Church of God really is” can and should be called into serious question by anyone with a functioning intellect.

Therefore the major question that remains is whether in the light of that depth of agreement the issues that still divide us have the same weight

Yes.

issues about authority in the Church, about primacy (especially the unique position of the pope),

Yes.

and the relations between the local churches and the universal church in making decisions (about matters like the ordination of women, for instance). 

Yes.

Are they theological questions in the same sense as the bigger issues on which there is already clear agreement? 

Given that they presuppose two readings of Scripture that are fundamentally at odds, I’d have to go with yes here too.

And if they are, how exactly is it that they make a difference to our basic understanding of salvation and communion? 

See above.

But if they are not, why do they still stand in the way of fullervisible unity? 

Ditto.

Can there, for example, be a model of unity as a communion of churches which have different attitudes to how the papal primacy is expressed?

Given the following, I’m thinking not.

It is of course impossible to open up these issues without some brief reference to issues of very immediate interest in the lives of the Anglican and Roman Catholic communions.  The current proposals for a Covenant between Anglican provinces represent an effort to create not a centralised decision-making executive but a ‘community of communities’ that can manage to sustain a mutually nourishing and mutually critical life, with all consenting to certain protocols of decision-making together.  As Harvesting notes, Anglicans have been challenged to flesh out their rhetoric about communion through the crises and controversies of recent years, and this is simply part of a variegated response that will, no doubt, continue for a good while yet to be refined and formulated.

In other words, a church that can actually decide stuff now and then can be in communion with a church that avoids actual decisions like the plague.  Can’t see it happening, Your Grace.  And I doubt that the Holy Father can see it happening either.

CROSSING THE LINE

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 38 Comments

At Wizbang, a self-described “agnostic gay marriage supporter who is still uncertain as to whether the Catholic Church has been a net boon or bane to modern civilization” thinks that forcing Catholic hospitals to perform procedures that the Roman Catholic Church finds morally abhorrent would be pretty much the stupidest move any American national or local government could possibly make:

The Church has its beliefs. It has its tenets and its principles. It has decided which are the most important ones, and has rediscovered its spine. It has drawn the line in the sand — society can go to Hell if it wishes, but the Church will not aid and abet in the process.

On this, they will not bend. If that means that they will no longer help in the adoption process in Massachusetts, so be it. If that means they have to completely shut down their charitable works in the District of Columbia, so be it.

And as they’ve said in the past, if hospitals end up required to perform abortions on demand, they will shut down every single Catholic hospital in the country.

Now that is a bluff we dare not call — Catholic hospitals represent 12.7% of all hospitals in the United States and 15% of all hospital beds. And the Church clarifies that threat — they simply won’t sell them off, but shut them down and, if necessary, tear them down. They will be morally obliged to make certain those hospitals are never used to perform abortions.

The Church’s position is arguable, but defensible. They will not, under any circumstances, cooperate with any law they find morally repugnant. Instead, they will find a way to not violate the law and still not comply with it. And the way they are talking about is to simply remove themselves from the law’s reach.

The law can say that they cannot discriminate against gays in adoption. But the law can not compel them to continue assisting in adoptions.

The law can say that employers cannot discriminate against gay employees. But the law can not compel them to have employees.

The law can say that hospitals must perform adoptions abortions on demand. But the law can not compel the Church to keep its hospitals open should it decide to raze them.

Particularly since the Obama Administration wants to limit tax deductions for charitable contributions.

The learned solons of the District of Columbia speak as if they don’t really need the Church and its charities, that there is a long list of other organizations just itching to step up and fill the void should the Church choose to leave the city. This is entirely consistent with plans by the Obama administration to limit tax deductions for charitable contributions, moving such things under the aegis of government and out of the hands of independent organizations.

I can hear John Chane now.  “Ah,” says DC’s Episcopal gasbag, “It’s all clear now.  Rather than help the sick as Jesus commanded in Matthew 25:31-46, the Catholic Church would prefer to close its hospitals in favor of some entities who haven’t even been born yet.”

Let me ask you something, John.  Suppose that, down the road, some future Democrat congress decided to pass a measure to the effect that if you decided you really couldn’t manage another kid right now, the hospital where you squirted the kid out was required to euthanize the little entity.

Would you bring up that same argument then?  Would you accuse the Catholic Church of trying to enforce its view of morality or its view of the Christian religion?  Because if you would, and I suspect that you would, then no morally serious person will ever again be interested in anything that you have to say, John. 

Ever.

Thanks to Greg Griffith.

I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 29 Comments

If you want to know what the psychological term “projection” means, you have two options.  Look the word up in the dictionary.  Or read why prominent, British, ganja-loving, homosexual lunatic Andrew Sullivan is shutting things down for a while:

This is only the second time in its nearly ten-year history that the Dish has gone silent. The reason now is the same as the reason then. When dealing with a delusional fantasist like Sarah Palin, it takes time to absorb and make sense of the various competing narratives that she tells about her life. There are so many fabrications and delusions in the book, mixed in with facts, that just making sense of it – and comparing it with objective reality as we know it, and the subjective reality she has previously provided – is a bewildering task.

Sully!!  Deep breaths, buddy!!

She is a deeply disturbed person which makes this work of fiction and fact all the more challenging to read. And the fact that she is now the leader of the Republican party and a potential presidential candidate, makes this process of deconstruction an important civil responsibility. We take this seriously as we always have. We want to be fair to her, and to her family[Yeah, Sully.  Sure you do - Ed], and to the innocent people she has brought into the spotlight. And we are not reporters. We are merely analysts trying to make sense of evidence already in the public domain, evidence that points in all sorts of directions, only one of which can be true.

The freakshow is still not letting you-know-what go.

Since the Dish has tried to be rigorous and careful in analyzing Palin’s unhinged grip on reality from the very beginning – specifically her fantastic story of her fifth pregnancy -  we feel it’s vital that we grapple with this new data as fairly and as rigorously as possible. That takes time to get right. And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else.

I imagine that tears were rolling down Sully’s face right about here as he cried out, “The fate of the Republic, nay, of HUMAN FREEDOM ITSELF depends on me!!”

And we have had the book for less than a day. We feel we owe it to you to get it right – or as right as we can – until we post or publish anything. As readers know, we also differ on some key issues and intend to air them and thrash this out until we are confident that whatever we publish is as fair as possible.

Sully?  Do you have any idea how insane you sound right now?

At some point, we will also go back and make sure we have not missed all the evidence of the other lies that Palin is now peddling. We won’t miss anything. But we ask for your patience.

The boy’s good, I’ll give him that much.  Every single time I think that this chronic-smoking, homosexual, limey whack job can’t possibly get any more unhinged, Excitable Andy proves me wrong. 

Seriously, Andy, you shrieking, hysterical little girl.  Either grow a pair and drop this way-beyond-bizarre obsession of yours or get on the plane right now.  I suppose the Guardian or the Independent would be happy to take you on.

This is, of course, exactly the wrong reason to vote for anyone but I really do hope Sarah Palin becomes the President of the United States in 2012.  Because the terror that it would generate among the left would be awfully fun to watch.

THAT KIERKEGAARD QUOTE UP TOP THERE

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 36 Comments

Washington, DC Episcopal Bishop and all-around pompous gasbag John Chane engages in one of his favorite pastimes.  Thanking God that he is not as other men are:

Most media coverage of the D.C. Council’s steps toward civil marriage equality for same-sex couples has followed a worn-out script that gives the role of speaking for God to clergy who are opposed to equality. As the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, I would say respectfully to my fellow Christians that people who deny others the blessings they claim for themselves should not assume they speak for the Almighty.

Two things, John.  That “fellow Christians” line of yours is a bit problematic since most of us decided a long time ago that the Episcopalians are nothing more than universalists who like to play dress-up but haven’t gotten around to deep-sixing the professional jargon yet.  That’s why I finally bailed anyway.

And “people who deny others the blessings they claim for themselves should not assume they speak for the Almighty,” assumes that you think that you do.  Considering how often your deity seems to change his mind, most of us have a serious problem with that one.

Christians have always argued about marriage. Jesus criticized the Mosaic law on divorce, saying “What God has joined together let no man separate.”

And you abandoned that one when you gave twice-divorced and thrice-married Barry “Third Time’s the Charm” Beisner a pointy hat so why should any Christian listen to what you have to say about marriage again?

But we don’t see clergy demanding that the city council make divorce illegal.

Welcome to the John Chane Non Sequitur Theater.  We also don’t see the Roman Catholic clergy of Washington demanding that the Eucharist be banned in Episcopal outlets since the Piskies don’t believe in the Real Presence.  John?  When you get a chance, take Matthew 19:3-8 out for a spin some time.

Some conservative Christian leaders claim that their understanding of marriage is central to Christian teaching. How do they square that claim with the Apostle Paul’s teaching that marriage is an inferior state, one reserved for people who are not able to stay singly celibate and resist the temptation to fornication?

Actually, they don’t.  Ass.  What they assert is that it’s not a good idea to rewrite the Word of the living God unless there’s a pillar of fire, a pillar of cloud and a really scary voice somewhere nearby.  Just seems safer, that’s all.

If “marriage is an inferior state, one reserved for people who are not able to stay singly celibate and resist the temptation to fornication,” then why are you arguing for the rights of homosexuals to marry?  Since, you know, what they do is, well…you know…fornication?

As historian Stephanie Coontz points out, the church did not bless marriages until the third century, or define marriage as a sacrament until 1215.

So what?  It was irrelevant until it had a liturgy?  Every history of the first century I’ve ever read indicates that marriages were treated as something way more important than me deciding that I’m going to boink you on a regular basis. 

Besides, God Incarnate blessed a wedding by His presence and by turning water into…oh, never mind.  Pearls before swine and all that.

The church embraced many of the assumptions of the patriarchal culture, in which women and marriageable children were assets to be controlled and exploited to the advantage of the man who headed their household. The theology of marriage was heavily influenced by economic and legal considerations; it emphasized procreation, and spoke only secondarily of the “mutual consolation of the spouses.”

John?  Let me know when you get to an actual theological argument.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, the relationship of the spouses assumed new importance, as the church came to understand that marriage was a profoundly spiritual relationship in which partners experienced, through mutual affection and self-sacrifice, the unconditional love of God.

Not going there, are you, John?  I get that.

The Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer puts it this way: “We believe that the union of husband and wife, in heart, body and mind, is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.”

You don’t have a scriptural leg to stand on and you know it.

Our evolving understanding of what marriage is leads, of necessity, to a re-examination of who it is for. Most Christian denominations no longer teach that all sex acts must be open to the possibility of procreation, and therefore contraception is permitted. Nor do they hold that infertility precludes marriage. The church has deepened its understanding of the way in which faithful couples experience and embody the love of the creator for creation. In so doing, it has put itself in a position to consider whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Slow WAY down, big man.  The Episcopal Organization is not “the Church.”  You’ve come to that conclusion; most of the Christian world has come to exactly the opposite one. 

Once again.  If you give a pointy hat and a hooked stick to old Third Time’s the Charm, you’re not serious about marriage.  Period.

Theologically, therefore, Christian support for same-sex marriage is not a dramatic break with tradition

To anybody who can read, it is so.

but a recognition that the church’s understanding of marriage has changed dramatically over 2,000 years.

Translation: homosexuals give us a lot of money, that’s why.

I have been addressing the sound theological foundation for a new religious understanding of marriage, because it disturbs me greatly to see opposition to marriage for same-sex couples portrayed as the only genuinely religious or Christian position.

No it hasn’t since you haven’t quoted any actual theology to back up your position.  John?  Give us some Christian theology or shut up.

I have been addressing the sound theological foundation for a new religious understanding of marriage,

“The sound theological foundation?”  You had me fooled, John.

because it disturbs me greatly to see opposition to marriage for same-sex couples portrayed as the only genuinely religious or Christian position.

Since the conservatives are relying on the Word of God and you’re not, I don’t get what you’re disturbed about, John.

D.C.’s proposed marriage equality law explicitly protects the religious liberty of those who believe that God’s love can be reflected in the loving commitment between two people of the same sex and of those who do not find God there. This is as it should be in a society so deeply rooted in the principles of religious freedom and equality under the law.

That’s not how the Archdiocese sees it, John.

The complete Kierkegaard quote from which the above was taken is here:

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

Amen. 

Seriously.  I’m going to have to start buying and reading lots and lots of Kierkegaard.  The Great Dane gets me.

GEORGE PITCHER?

Monday, November 16th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 63 Comments

Jack Chick thinks you need to dial it down:

One of our senior bishops wanted to know why Dr Williams was bounced into attending the press conference, called hastily to announce Benedict’s takeover bid – and staged alongside his top man in England, Archbishop Vincent Nichols – in the Roman Church’s London gaff. Why hadn’t Dr Williams, this bishop wanted to know, just instructed his chief spin doctor to say airily that he was busy and the Pope’s acquisitive ambitions weren’t a matter for him? Why didn’t he also let it be known that he would no longer be going to Rome this week, because he and the Pontiff no longer had ecumenical common ground to discuss?

None of that would be in Dr Williams’s nature, of course. We’d be entering an alternative reality in which Harrison Ford plays him in the movie, bursting into Benedict’s Vatican chamber and hissing: “What’s your game, Benny?” The Pope (played by Rutger Hauer) slowly turns: “Vot do you sink I’m doing, unshaven one? For you, ze Communion is over.”

But if Dr Williams has been determined not to make a drama out of this crisis, the Pope has been playing to the gallery. And it’s his strategy we should be focused on. Unlike the Bishop of Southwark, I don’t want Dr Williams to express his “disappointment”, I want him to ask, perhaps a little more politely than in my movie storyboard, what the Pope’s game is.

I’ll tell you what I think it is. Benedict is determined to rebuild his one, true and, importantly, universal Church. Under a banner of doctrinal purity, he is annexing orthodoxy. That’s why, in 2006, he dropped the title Patriarch of the West from the list of handles conferred on the Pope. Too parochial, too implicitly restrictive. Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church is altogether more agreeable to him.

Organic growth is not an option for him, so he must grow the Church by acquisition. The Apostolic Constitution is part of that acquisitive strategy, aimed less at dismembering the Church of England than at bringing home Catholics in America and Australia; but even more significantly being tested as a tool ahead of bringing others, such as the ultra-traditionalist and schismatic Lefebvrists, back into the fold. Benedict wants to consolidate orthodoxy wherever he finds it and, eastern Orthodox patriarchs should note, there can be only one voice of authority and it speaks from Rome. This Pope is on a reactionary and Counter-Reformational rampage.

Would you like to hear a short, religious history of my family? 

My mother was raised Roman Catholic in a devout Catholic family; my uncle was a devout Catholic long after Mom had given it up.  I only suspect the reason why Mom left the Catholic Church for the Episcopal Church but I don’t know it for a fact so I’m not going to say anything about it here.

My father was an indifferent Methodist.  His time in the China-Burma-India theater of World War II probably convinced him that one Christian church was pretty much the same as another. 

If I remember correctly, Dad used to sporadically attend church with the rest of the family until the late 60′s or thereabouts.  After that, he only entered Emmanuel Episcopal Church for my sister’s wedding and Mom’s memorial service.

As a result…

My oldest sister’s a Mennonite.  As far as I know, my brother doesn’t attend church at all.  My other sister’s still an Episcopalian, sort of.  Me, I’m still trying to figure things out.

What’s your point, Johnson?  Same as it was a few posts down from this one.  I’m not going to stick around any religious tradition simply because it’s the one my parents brought me up in.

And I’m also not going to hang around any church simply because that church has a pedigree or thinks it does.  Are you preaching the Gospel?  Are you proclaiming the risen Lord Jesus Christ? 

If you’re not or if you insist on holding on to connections with people who aren’t interested in these matters, then not to put too fine a point on it but you’re in the way and I don’t care how old your religious institution claims to be.

Right now, there’s one plan on the table and that plan is the Pope’s.  Until the Anglican reply is as bold as Benedict XVI’s plan is, I’m less and less interested in remaining connected to the “Anglican tradition.”

Like I said down below.  Give me a reason.

SCHADENFREUDE

Sunday, November 15th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 10 Comments

This would be…suggestive.  Are the Democrats in danger of losing President Obama’s old Senate seat?  The Chicago Sun-Times seems to think that that’s a very real possibility:

About a year ago, thousands jammed Grant Park in Chicago to celebrate Barack Obama’s election to the White House, a communal civic defining moment. But those giddy days are long gone as Democrats in Illinois face the potential of losing the Senate seat President Obama once held next November.

Democratic Party leaders in Washington — and the Obama White House — failed to recruit a candidate strong enough to scare Rep. Mark Kirk — the Republicans’ best bet — from the race. The only luck they had was the decision by Sen. Roland Burris — appointed by now-indicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Obama’s remaining term — not to run to keep the seat.

The chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois — Michael J. Madigan, the speaker of the Illinois House — is the father of Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who rebuffed Obama and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee when they wooed her for the Senate. Papa Madigan, more concerned with keeping his state House majority, doesn’t really care who the senator is.

Captain Yips is, of course, the go-to authority in all matters dealing with the Land of Lincoln so any questions should be referred to him.  My understanding is that if the Illinois Republican Party can screw things up, it will so we shall see.  Which means that the fact that this speculation is being bandied about at all is more than a little interesting.

UPDATE: The Captain weighs in.

DEAD ON ARRIVAL

Sunday, November 15th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 16 Comments

My copy of NannerMcBotoxCare arrived last week.  I haven’t started to read it yet since it’s twice the size of its House predecessor and nearly four inches thick.  And it’s name, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, makes sense only if you think that “affordable” means that you’ll pay more than you’re paying now:

Democrats have promised that health reform would reduce health care costs, but legislation the House passed last week would increase costs over the next decade by $289 billion. By 2019, health costs would rise to 21.1 percent of GDP compared to 20.8 under current law, according to an actuarial report prepared by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

“With the exception of the proposed reductions in Medicare payment updates for institutional providers, the provisions of H.R. 3962 would not have a significant impact on future health care cost growth rates. In addition, the longer-term viability of the Medicare update reductions is doubtful,” the report said.

In other words, outside of Medicare payment cuts to hospitals, the bill doesn’t curb increasing health care costs. And even the Medicare payment cuts will be difficult to sustain.

Grandma?  Grandpa?  Hope you’re not that attached to your current level of Medicare coverage.

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.