AT LEAST, DO NO HARM

Usually, I admire what Charles Pierce writes, but when he wrote about the question and answer period following Hillary Clinton's speech at the Conference of the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, he was obviously still feeling the Bern. Apparently, he can't get past his Sanders love to give Hillary Clinton a break, for this is one of a series of blog posts in which he, at best, damns Clinton with faint praise, or, at worst, is outright critical, often about trivia.  Read his post; it's not long. I repost my comments to his blog post below; they are long:

Oh my gawd, Charlie. You sound like nitpicking Chuck Todd. Is this your version of bothsiderism? Clinton is who she is, and she's not going to have a personality change to suit you or anyone else before the election. Get over your issues, or at least write about something else so you do no harm.

Further, still me:

By the end of the primaries, I liked watching Clinton speak a lot more than I liked watching Sanders speak. If I chose my candidate by likability or by which one I wanted to have a beer with, Clinton would have won hands down. But, if Sanders had won the primary vote, I'd have supported him without thinking twice.

What I would not have done is suggest that if he just changed this or that about his personal style, or if he'd just say something in a different way, he'd gather more support. Sanders is who he is, and expecting him to be other than he is, would have been completely unrealistic. It's the same with Clinton. If you don't like her, vote for Trump, write in a name, or vote for Stein or Johnson, and enable a Trump victory, but stop the bloody nitpicking about style.

TV talking heads do that stuff every day on TV, and I don't understand why a usually sensible blogger would join in. This is not even a serious policy discussion, which would be different and welcome from what we see all day, every day on TV. Yeah, I'm way down in a long thread of comments in a reply, at that, and I expect few people will read what I typed, but I sure feel better for having written.

Though my comments were way down in a long comment thread, I do have a Facebook page of my own and a blog, and I thought my comments worth sharing. I share; you decide.

OH NO!

Ladies and gentleman of the USA, this is what your Republican Majority Whip in the House of Representatives, Steve Scalise, was up to in 2002. Louisiana blogger Lamar White broke the story.

According to recently uncovered posts on Stormfront, the Internet’s oldest and most notorious white nationalist and neo-Nazi forum, the United States House Majority Whip, Steve Scalise (R- Louisiana), was allegedly an honored guest and speaker at an international conference of white supremacist leaders.

From the Washington Post:

In a statement, Scalise’s spokesperson Moira Bagley emphasized that the then-state lawmaker was unaware at the time of the group’s ideology and its association with racists and neo-Nazi activists.
....

She added, “He has never been affiliated with the abhorrent group in question. The hate-fueled ignorance and intolerance that group projects is in stark contradiction to what Mr. Scalise believes and practices as a father, a husband, and a devoted Catholic.”

I'd say giving a speech to a group is an association.  Also, I'm beyond weary of public figures hiding behind their devout religious practices when they are confronted with their own mistakes and misjudgments.

And it's not just Democrats who are questioning Scalise's story.  Here's Streiff at Red State:

Did he know who he was talking to? 

Louisiana isn’t a big state. State legislative districts aren’t particularly large. In Mr. Scalise’s case, when he spoke to this group he’d been serving in the Louisiana legislature since 1996. David Duke and his operation were not obscure. In 1991, Duke won the GOP gubernatorial nomination and faced known felon Edwin Edwards in the general election. This resulted in former governor Buddy Roemer who had campaigned, unsuccessfully, on the slogan “Anyone but Edwards” deciding that “Anyone” did not extend to a former KKK Grand Dragon.

For Mr. Scalise to creditably claim he was unaware of the nature of the group we all have to be idiots.

Exactly, it beggars belief that Scalise did not know he was speaking at an event sponsored by David Duke's organization.

ALICE WALKER READS SOJOURNER TRUTH - "AIN'T I A WOMAN?"

Sojourner Truth (1797-1883): Ain't I A Woman?
Delivered 1851
Women's Convention, Akron, Ohio

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.

 Stolen shamelessly and with gratitude from my dear friend margaret who blogs at "leave it lay where Jesus flang it".

Collect of the Day: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Ross Tubman, Liberators and Prophets, 1902, 1894, 1883, 1913

O God, whose Spirit guides us into all truth and makes us free: Strengthen and sustain us as you did your servants Elizabeth, Amelia, Sojourner, and Harriet. Give us vision and courage to stand against oppression and injustice and all that works against the glorious liberty to which you call all your children; through Jesus Christ our Savior, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

LORD HARRIES' SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Since I found it difficult to excerpt parts of the splendid speech by Lord Harries of Pentregarth, retired bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Oxford, at the second reading of the same-sex civil marriage bill in the British Parliament House of Lords, here it is whole and entire.

My Lords, I understand very well the unease that many of your Lordships feel about this Bill. I was brought up in a world where homosexuality was whispered about in dark corners and any hint of its expression resulted in expulsion. Our understanding of homosexuality is undoubtedly the biggest social change of my lifetime.

My own change and understanding came about when I realised—for example, through reading the biographies of gay people—that often, from a very early age, they had found themselves predominantly attracted to members of their own sex, not just physically but as whole persons. While some people are bisexual and there is a degree of fluidity in the sexuality of others, we know that for a significant minority their sexuality is not a matter of choice but as fundamental to their identity as being male or female. That is a fact that must bring about a decisive shift in our understanding.

The question arises as to how the church and society should respond to this. Both have an interest in helping people live stable lives in committed relationships. For this reason, many of us warmly welcome civil partnerships, not just because of the legal protections that they rightly afford to those who enter into them but because they offer the opportunity for people to commit themselves to one another publicly. Personally, I take a high view of civil partnerships. The idea of a lifelong partnership is a beautiful one. I deeply regret that the Church of England has not yet found a way of publicly affirming civil partnerships in a Christian context. I wish that it had warmly welcomed them from the first and provided a liturgical service in which the couple could commit themselves to one another before God and ask for God’s blessing upon their life together. If only the church had made it clear that although these relationships might be different in some respects from the union of a man and woman, they are equally valid in the eyes of the church and, more importantly, in the eyes of God.

Sadly, too many who now say that they accept civil partnerships have done so only slowly, reluctantly and through gritted teeth. Today we are not in a situation where civil partnerships are regarded as different but equal to marriage. Rightly or wrongly, the impression is inevitably created that one form of relationship is inferior to the other, and people believe that marriage is a profounder and richer form of relationship than a civil partnership.

Most importantly, many gay and lesbian people believe this and want to enter not just into a civil partnership but a marriage: a lifelong commitment of love and fidelity, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health. Marriage affords legal advantages that are denied to civil partnerships, such as their legal status in many countries, but that is not the main point. The point is that those who wish to enter into this most fundamental of human relationships should be able to do so legally. I am aware that this involves a significant change in our understanding of marriage, but marriage has never had a fixed character. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, eloquently pointed out that its legal meaning has changed over the years; and no less significantly, its social meaning has changed.

For most of history, among the upper classes, marriage was primarily a way of controlling titles and wealth. Among all classes, it involved the radical subservience of women. Often it went along with a very lax attitude—by males, not females—to relationships outside marriage. Contraception was forbidden and this resulted in many children, and as often as not the wife dying young. Only in the 18th century did we get a growth in emphasis on the quality of the relationship of the couple. Now, this mutual society, help and comfort that the one ought to have with the other, in prosperity and adversity, is rightly stressed. This is equally valued by all people, whatever their sexuality.

I really do not underestimate the linguistic dissonance set up by this Bill and the consequent unease felt by many but, for those reasons that I have briefly outlined, I warmly welcome it. I believe in marriage. I believe, with the Jewish rabbi of old, that in the love of a couple there dwells the shekinah—the divine presence; or, to put it in Christian terms, that which reflects the mutual love of Christ and his church. I believe in the institution of marriage and I want it to be available to same-sex couples as well as to males and females.

Just imagine the joy in the LGTB community if Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby had given a similar loving and pastoral address.   I know - water under the bridge, no rewind button, but perhaps the archbishop might take a lesson from Lord Harries, as he has said his views on same-sex marriage are evolving.

Lord Harries rightly calls the leadership of the church on their present claim to have supported same-sex civil partnerships in the past characterizing it as coming "slowly, reluctantly, and through gritted teeth."  His lovely words affirming that "the shekinah - the divine presence...that which reflects the mutual love of Christ and his church" is present in the relationships of same-sex couples are quite moving.

Thanks to Erp, who called my attention to the speech by leaving a quote in my comments. 

SISTER ACT

And a fine act it was. Amongst the speeches last night was Sister Simone Campbell's gem in a class all its own.  Sister Simone, one of the "Nuns on the Bus", brought the crowd to their feet cheering and applauding time after time. She dared to mention the P-word and tell stories of the struggles of the people who live in poverty. The plight of the poor, which was not much mentioned in the course of the DNC, stands as a challenge to us all. The "We" in "We the people...." declare to each of us that not one of us stands alone, that I am my sister's keeper; I am my brother's keeper. As the Founding Father Ben Franklin said, "If we don't hang together, by Heavens we shall hang separately". The words were true then, and the words are true now.  Sister Simone served as the conscience of the convention.

STEPHEN COLBERT'S TIME 100 SPEECH

From Mark Helperin's 'The Page':

STEPHEN COLBERT:  Thank you, very much.  Lovely.
Good evening, and congratulations my fellow influencers.  How is everyone feeling this evening?

Oh, come on, you could do better than that?  Look at this room.  Look at this people.  Look at the view.  You are the TIME 100, and we are better than other people.  I'll say it, it's just us chickens.  No one is live blogging this, right?  You're on your honor.  And I don't know about you, but it is such a relief to be away from the kind of riffraff who aren't influential enough to make the list.  People like the Pope and Oprah.  The Poprah.

You know, it's actually a bit dangerous to have this many influential people in the room.  What if something should happen?  It would wipe out the world's supply of influence.  That's why some members of the TIME 100 are not here tonight, we have sequestered Warren Buffett and Viola Davis and in an undisclosed location in case we need to repopulate the world with influentialness.

Please read the entire speech, which is on a par with his address at the White House Correspondents Dinner during the George W Bush presidency, in which he skewered attendees left and right, including the president himself. If you recall, he lost the audience of media folk present during his talk but bravely carried on, while holding the viewers at home enthralled with laughter mixed with shock that he actually spoke the words we were hearing.

Stephen does it again with audacious, pointed comemntary on people right there in the room with him.

Also, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke is here tonight.  Also an instant, instant feminist icon.  Famously tested, testified before Congress, that Georgetown, a Catholic institution,should be required to provide insurance coverage for her birth control.

Now, TIME 100 honoree, his eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan disagrees -- sir, lovely to see you again.

Of course, now some, some critics have said in response to this that if the Catholic church's insurance does not cover Sandra Fluke's birth control, it shouldn't cover Cardinal Dolan's Viagra.

Oh, no, no, no.  Oh, no, no, no, that's called celibacy plus.  That's how the pros do it.  Because chastity is one thing, but it shows true commitment to uphold your vows when you are sporting a crook you could hang a miter on.  Oh, wow, see you at mass on Sunday, sir?

I hope he doesn't become Pope.

I'm a Catholic, it's okay.  I go to confession, it will be fine.  Thank you.

Ouch!  That smarted.  I looked without success for a video of the speech, but I expect one will be available soon.

ET TU, GONSAGA?

From Huff Post Religion:

SPOKANE, Wash. (RNS) Archbishop Desmond Tutu is slated to deliver the commencement address next month to Gonzaga University's graduating class. A group of alumni, however, are saying he isn't welcome and are urging administrators to withdraw the invitation.

Patrick Kirby, a 1993 Gonzaga graduate, said Tutu is pro-abortion rights, has made offensive statements toward Jews and supports contraception and the ordination of gay clergy and shouldn't be honored by a Catholic institution.

The admirable work of an entire, long life, which includes a Nobel Peace Prize, counts not at all with the alumni because Archbishop Tutu does not agree with every teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  If there is a living saint walking amongst us today, it is Tutu.

As for his "offensive statements toward Jews", I've known the archbishop to speak with great respect of the Jewish faith and the Hebrew Testament in which his own Christian faith has its roots.  What he has cautioned against is the State of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, which is an entirely different matter.  I know that many Jewish people and non-Jews are quick to cry anti-Semitism at the least criticism of  of the policies of the Israeli state.  A good many politicians in the US do not speak out, because they fear retribution at the ballot box.  Nor is this the first time that alumni of universities have objected to appearances by Archbishop Tutu, and here I am, in my naïveté, still clinging to the ideal that one purpose of universities is the exploration of a diversity of ideas.

Thanks to Ann V for the link.

UPDATE: Sign the petition in support of Archbishop Tutu.

OOPS! WRONG PARTY

From the Quad-City Times:

By all accounts it was an honest mistake, political party convention attendees said.
Republican congressional candidate Dan Dolan of Muscatine arrived early at the Monroe County Courthouse for the Republican convention being held Saturday in Albia, Iowa.

Unfortunately, the county Democrats were holding their convention in the same building, and Dolan spoke to the wrong group of people.

“Nobody asked enough questions before he started speaking,” Monroe County Supervisor Denny Ryan said. “It finally got to the point in the speech where one of the people said, ‘Are you sure you’re at the right convention?’”

Dolan laughed Monday when he described the encounter.

“It was a crazy day,” Dolan said. “We had scheduled 10 speaking engagements through the district.”

Well, Dolan gave his Republican speech to a group of Democrats, and the story has a happy ending in that the parties involved in the situation remained civil with each other.  Campaign politics in the US have strayed so far into the Bizarro World that the incident didn't surprise me at all, but it did give me a laugh.  Cynic that I am, I think both political parties are bought, and it's not ordinary folks that paid for them.  For me, it comes down to which party will screw the powerless the least, and I believe you know my answer.

Thanks to Paul (A.) for the laugh and the link.

ARCHBISHOP JANUS

Click on over to MadPriest's place, Of Course I Could Be Wrong, to read the latest incredible, yet true story about Archbishop Janus.

HILLARY CLINTON'S GREAT SPEECH

Hillary Clinton gave a great speech at the UN meeting in Geneva on Human Rights Day. Watch the video and read the transcript at the Advocate. Perhaps Clinton would have given the same speech three years ago, but since she holds her position at the pleasure of the president, she may not have been permitted to give the speech by the Obama administration. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton came late to support the repeal of DOMA. During her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination, she supported repeal of only Part 3 of DOMA.

Now we are heading into an election period, and you will hear many brave speeches by members of the administration, so pardon me if I'm a bit cynical and don't join in the celebration with unalloyed joy. Pardon me if I think, 'Better late than never'.

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.

This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.

Secretary Clinton strikes all the right notes, and her words will be quoted time and again, as they well deserve to be. The words were spoken, and they cannot ever be blotted out from history. Congratulations due, Madame Secretary.

BISHOP JOHN SAXBEE ON THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

Many thanks to the Rev Lesley Fellows for the video and the transcript of Bishop John Saxbee's speech at the November 2010 Church of England General Synod. Bishop Saxbee retired as Bishop of the Diocese of Lincoln in January of this year.

The speech is splendid. I'm somewhat disappointed that the bishop decided to vote for the covenant to move on to the next step in the process, that of presenting the covenant to the dioceses for study and a decision at to whether or not to approve the document, and I regret that Bishop Saxbee's voice will no longer be heard in future gatherings of GS.

In relation to the Anglican Covenant, I’m on record as saying in this synod that I entirely support the process, as long as it never ends. Let me explain what I mean. The Anglican Communion doesn’t need a Covenant because Anglicanism is a covenant. It is a way of Provinces listening, living distinctively apart from each other whilst remaining part of one another. That is a way of doing difference differently from the ways in which groups and individuals usually do difference. It is predicated on grace and goodwill, and if there is grace and goodwill then a covenant will be unnecessary and if there is no grace and goodwill then a covenant will be unavailing.

Listen to this quote from Hilary Mantel’s book ‘Wolf Hall’, putting words into the mouth of my distinguished predecessor, Cardinal Wolsey, “Wolsey always said that the making of a treaty is the treaty, it doesn’t matter what the terms are, just that there are terms. It’s the goodwill that matters, when that runs out the treaty is broken, whatever the terms may say’.

Members of Synod, the Church of England has a bit of a history of putting in place measures in response to a particular presented issue and then discovering that the proposed cure does not only have unintended consequences (and The Good Intentions Paving Company is still very much in business, I assure you), not only will there be unintended consequences, but the cure can actually make matters worse.

We all know that the process towards the drawing up of this Covenant was triggered by events in The Episcopal Church of a few years ago, notwithstanding the long preamble which was helpfully presented to us by the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Those events were by no means trivial, but to elevate them to the status of game changers when it comes to how we deal with each other over time is… well… stepping over a very significant mark in the sand. And I truly doubt whether it will be conducive to long term stability.

The Covenant may of itself not be tyrannical, but there are those in the Communion whose treatment of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers has had at least a touch of the tyrannical about it. And if I ever come to the conclusion that a covenant of this kind would give them comfort then I would be bound to resist it.

Anglicanism has been described as a fellowship of civilised disagreement. Well I leave you to judge whether a two-tier Communion with first and second division members answers to that description of civilised disagreement. It frankly feels like we will be sending sincere and faithful Anglicans to stand in the corner until they have seen the error of their ways and can return to the ranks of the pure and spotless.

I am grateful to Mr Roy for referring to the story of the woman taken in adultery. Jesus, if you recall, first of all draw an extended circle of sinfulness to include those who considered themselves to be more righteous than she was, and then drew an extended circle of acceptance to count her in. You know the little rhyme,

“They drew a circle that shut me out —
Heretic, rebel, something to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took them in.”

We can draw ever tighter circles of sinfulness or we can draw ever wider circles of acceptance, so that all Provinces, and not just some, hear our Lord’s injunction, ‘Go and sin no more’, but also echo his reassurance, ‘Neither do I condemn you’. I love the Anglican Communion. I value our inter-diocesan links and I have learnt so much from visits to many dioceses. But I don’t love it so much that I would want it to be still a communion but no longer Anglican. That prize is not worth the price.

And so, Madam Chair, I simply leave you with the wise words of the American philosopher H. L. Mencken which you may well be familiar, ‘For every difficult and complex problem there is a solution which is simple, straight-forward and wrong’. As an answer to a difficult and complex problem, this Covenant is simple, straight-forward and I still believe probably wrong. There is too much religion in the world and not enough faith, and I think this Covenant seems to be more about factory farmed religion than free range faith.

As I want the conversation to continue, I cannot vote against the motion to go on considering it and its implications. But I do think the implications are very significant. And as I ride off into the wonderful sunsets of West Wales, I wish you all well and hope and pray that as this process continues you will enjoy discussing the idea of a covenant and hesitate long and hard before signing up to one.

Thank-you.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR - JANUARY 15, 1929-APRIL 4, 1968

Martin Luther King, Jr in Montgomery, Alabama, on March 25, 1965

A FRESH BREEZE BLOWS ACROSS CHARLESTON

Bishops Mark Lawrence of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and William Love of the Episcopal Diocese of Albany are members of the Communion Partners, bishops and clergy who, to one degree or another, have one foot in and one foot out of the Episcopal, or if their feet are still planted in the Episcopal Church, they are not happy campers. One wonders if either or both bishops will, in the not-so-distant future, decide to bolt to ACNA, where, in their heart of hearts, it seems they long to be.

The Episcopalians in the two dioceses who are rather more loyal to the Episcopal Church than their bishops, feel a lack of pastoral care from the heads of their dioceses and have banded together to support each other and the Episcopal Church.

From the website of Episcopal Forum of South Carolina:

The mission of the Episcopal Forum in the Diocese of South Carolina is to preserve unity with diversity in the Diocese and within The Episcopal Church through the inclusion of a broad range of Scriptural understandings and by upholding the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and the democratic actions of its Conventions and elected leaders.

Openly Episcopal in Albany states:

Our goal will be to raise the visibility of The Episcopal Church throughout the diocese, and encourage our parishes and leadership to remain Episcopal in Albany.

Fr. Frank Wade, who teaches in the doctoral program at Virginia Theological Seminary, recently spoke to the Episcopal Forum in South Carolina on why he is "enthusiastically Episcopalian". Here's a snippet from Fr. Wade's speech:

If I were to see our Church in a specific Gospel story, I would suggest the Road to Emmaus. In that account two people were walking from Jerusalem to the village of Emmaus on Easter Day. They were fully aware of the crucifixion and had heard rumors of the resurrection. They were dong their best to figure it all out. During their conversation, Jesus, unrecognized, joined them and guided their discussion to a deeper understanding. At the conclusion of their journey they had a meal and it is said that they recognized the Lord in that great Eucharistic phrase "the breaking of the bread." I would suggest that our Church is still on the Emmaus road, confident that when we are in conversation our Lord joins us and deepens our understanding.

I know you want to read the entire speech.

I've read and quoted enough of the whining, self-pitying, and sanctimonious words of Bishop Mark Lawrence to recognize Fr. Wade's words as a breath of fresh air blowing across Charleston on the day he spoke.

Openly Episcopal in Albany, will have the privilege of a visit from Fr. Wade to St Paul's Church in Albany on April 10. If you're nearby, I'd recommend that you go. Details below.

What: Communion, Covenant, Conversation: Being Episcopalian and Anglican
Who: The Rev. Dr. Frank Wade, presenter
Where: St. Paul's Episcopal Church, 21 Hackett Blvd., Albany
When: Saturday, April 10, 2:00 PM

For further information, call 518-453-3657

NOTE: If you have difficulty accessing PDF files, the text of Fr. Wade's speech in Charleston is also available at Openly Episcopal.

On Unwelcome Implications

From Ruth Gledhill at the The Times.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has mounted a direct challenge to the Roman Catholic Church's stance against the ordination of women priests.

In a speech in Rome today, he made clear there could be no turning back of the clock on women priests to appease the Pope, the Catholic Church or malcontents in the Church of England.
....

And in a significant departure from Anglican polity, he did not apologise for the ordination of women priests, the development in 1992 that derailed progress towards full unity between the two churches. Instead, he issued a direct challenge to the Catholic prohibition on women's ordination and said that refusing to ordain women could not enhance a Church communion.

Oh good. As primus inter pares of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury will not demand an end to the ordination of women priests or that the existing women priests be defrocked to please the pope. I'm pleased to know that there are limits to what the ABC will do to please the pope.

"For many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women," he said.

When the ABC references the baptized, he enters deep waters. The attitude toward and treatment of baptized GLTB persons by certain Anglican churches come immediately to mind. What about a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptized straight persons and baptized GLTB persons?

Bishop Barbara Harris gets it right in her sermon at the Integrity Eucharist at GC09:

More importantly, if indeed the church honestly believes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender folk should not be bishops, then the church should not ordain them to the sacred order of deacons. For certainly, if one is deemed fit to be ordained a transitional deacon, then one should be deemed eligible to move into the sacred order of priests and to be elected and consecrated to the episcopate. If you don’t want GLBT folks as bishops, don’t ordain them as deacons. Better yet, be honest and say, “We don’t want you, you don’t belong here,” and don’t bestow upon them the sacrament of Baptism to begin with.

How can you initiate someone and then treat them like they’re half-assed baptized?

Really, it's quite simple.