What a day! First off this old bird had to get up and get presentable to the world - no longer a simple task. Then off to pick up my granddaughter at school to go for a counselling session, then to MacDonald's to pick up lunch, because she'll miss the school lunch. She eats her lunch in the car and in the counsellor's office. While Mimi waits for her, she reads "People Magazine". Who are these people? I see right away that I'm woefully out of touch. I suppose I should subscribe, just to keep up.
One picture story featured the two English princelings, Will and Harry, and revealed to the world where the boys hang out to get drunk. MadPriest, are you reading this? In lieu of stealing the magazine, I hand-copied the names of the night spots in the event that you travel down to London town and want to hit the cool spots. See the trouble I take for you. I was going to post this in your comments, but I thought, why give all the good stuff to you? Here's the list:
The Pig's Ear
The Cuckoo Club
Archipelago
Boujis
Mahiki's Lanai Lounge
Back to school with my granddaughter. Come home, eat lunch, answer a few emails and post these details of my life which will, I'm sure, captivate all of you. Then at 3:15, I'm off to pick up my son's two children to take them to the dentist. Oh, joy. A six-year-old with ADHD at the dentist. I have my son on stand-by if he gives trouble. You may ask why I am doing all this. My son had to take off a lot of time from work for the custody fight in court, so I'm trying to help. Mimi gotta hold this shit together, don't she? Or she thinks she does.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
My Father
Ha! I'll bet you thought I was out of the autobiography business. Not quite yet.
My father was a gifted and highly intelligent man, but, sadly, he threw away his life and his talents, and he made life miserable for us, his family. He was an artist, a witty raconteur, and a brilliant ironist. Having left school at 17, he was self-taught, and he could converse knowledgeably on nearly any subject. He loved books, music, and art, and all of those were present in our home, even as my mother was sometimes left to seek help from her family for the necessities of life, like food and clothing.
Once my father was fired from his first job, because of too many hangover absences, he only held one other decent job in his life. Even during the years when he was not drinking, any direction or criticism angered him, and when it came from his superiors at work, he'd quit. Rather late in his life he worked for the Job Corps for a couple of years, teaching art, but Richard Nixon defunded that program, and he was laid off.
He worked briefly for a movie rental company, and that summer we saw a different movie every night. The neighbors came over, and we'd set up chairs, or sometimes he'd show the movies in the back yard.
While my mother worked at low-paid clerical jobs, my father finally settled on a "home business" doing commercial art work that brought in very little money. My mother scrimped and scrounged and managed to hold us together with the help of her family. If we had not been renting our house from my grandparents, would we have been out on the street? I suspect that the rent went unpaid fairly often.
We owned a Victrola wind-up record player on which we played the old 78 rpm records - those that broke when you dropped them. Some nights, when my father had been on a bender, and came home in a mellow mood, rather than a sour mood, he'd play "By the Light of the Silvery Moon" all night into the morning. We'd fall asleep to the song and wake up to it. I've thought about the words of the song and wondered whom he was mooning about. I know that he and my mother were not well-suited to each other.
Even in the periods when he did not drink - once for eight years - he was mean. He had major psychological problems that he would not deal with, and he took his frustrations out on us. My two sisters and I were terrified of him. With his sharp wit and irony, he browbeat us and ridiculed us. If we seemed to be enjoying ourselves for a few minutes, he'd find a chore for us to do. With him around, there was little peace or rest to be had, and, since he "worked" out of our home, he was always around, except when he delivered his occasional work. The three of us breathed a heavy sigh of relief when we heard the door close behind him, because we'd enjoy an hour or two of respite.
One day, when I'd had enough from him, I told him that he acted like Hitler. He took off after me, but I was faster than he was, and I was out the door. I figured whatever he planned to do if he caught me, I was going to be outside, and he might have to do it in front of someone. He backed off, once I was outside. I never did that again. I think I touched a nerve. I'd like to say that I pricked his conscience with those words, and that our lives improved afterwards, but no, nothing changed.
He was merciless about table manners. No elbows out from the side while eating. Hold the knife and fork just so. No food in the mouth in sight. No noise while chewing. My middle sister had a habit of clinking the fork against her teeth, on occasion, and that was not to be. He was on her case constantly about that. We all grew up with impeccable table manners, but they came at a great cost.
Looking back, my sisters and I were grateful for the art, the music, the books, and the magazines which added a richness to our lives that mitigated, to a degree, the otherwise unfortunate situation we were in. That my father did not make the necessities of life a priority, drove my mother wild. It was a hell of a life, but thank God for the books and the music and the art.
So. There you have it. Alcoholism, family life in tatters, no money, depending on the kindness of family (not strangers), but music, art, books, magazines and impeccable table manners all in place. How Tennessee Williams is that?
My father was a gifted and highly intelligent man, but, sadly, he threw away his life and his talents, and he made life miserable for us, his family. He was an artist, a witty raconteur, and a brilliant ironist. Having left school at 17, he was self-taught, and he could converse knowledgeably on nearly any subject. He loved books, music, and art, and all of those were present in our home, even as my mother was sometimes left to seek help from her family for the necessities of life, like food and clothing.
Once my father was fired from his first job, because of too many hangover absences, he only held one other decent job in his life. Even during the years when he was not drinking, any direction or criticism angered him, and when it came from his superiors at work, he'd quit. Rather late in his life he worked for the Job Corps for a couple of years, teaching art, but Richard Nixon defunded that program, and he was laid off.
He worked briefly for a movie rental company, and that summer we saw a different movie every night. The neighbors came over, and we'd set up chairs, or sometimes he'd show the movies in the back yard.
While my mother worked at low-paid clerical jobs, my father finally settled on a "home business" doing commercial art work that brought in very little money. My mother scrimped and scrounged and managed to hold us together with the help of her family. If we had not been renting our house from my grandparents, would we have been out on the street? I suspect that the rent went unpaid fairly often.
We owned a Victrola wind-up record player on which we played the old 78 rpm records - those that broke when you dropped them. Some nights, when my father had been on a bender, and came home in a mellow mood, rather than a sour mood, he'd play "By the Light of the Silvery Moon" all night into the morning. We'd fall asleep to the song and wake up to it. I've thought about the words of the song and wondered whom he was mooning about. I know that he and my mother were not well-suited to each other.
Even in the periods when he did not drink - once for eight years - he was mean. He had major psychological problems that he would not deal with, and he took his frustrations out on us. My two sisters and I were terrified of him. With his sharp wit and irony, he browbeat us and ridiculed us. If we seemed to be enjoying ourselves for a few minutes, he'd find a chore for us to do. With him around, there was little peace or rest to be had, and, since he "worked" out of our home, he was always around, except when he delivered his occasional work. The three of us breathed a heavy sigh of relief when we heard the door close behind him, because we'd enjoy an hour or two of respite.
One day, when I'd had enough from him, I told him that he acted like Hitler. He took off after me, but I was faster than he was, and I was out the door. I figured whatever he planned to do if he caught me, I was going to be outside, and he might have to do it in front of someone. He backed off, once I was outside. I never did that again. I think I touched a nerve. I'd like to say that I pricked his conscience with those words, and that our lives improved afterwards, but no, nothing changed.
He was merciless about table manners. No elbows out from the side while eating. Hold the knife and fork just so. No food in the mouth in sight. No noise while chewing. My middle sister had a habit of clinking the fork against her teeth, on occasion, and that was not to be. He was on her case constantly about that. We all grew up with impeccable table manners, but they came at a great cost.
Looking back, my sisters and I were grateful for the art, the music, the books, and the magazines which added a richness to our lives that mitigated, to a degree, the otherwise unfortunate situation we were in. That my father did not make the necessities of life a priority, drove my mother wild. It was a hell of a life, but thank God for the books and the music and the art.
So. There you have it. Alcoholism, family life in tatters, no money, depending on the kindness of family (not strangers), but music, art, books, magazines and impeccable table manners all in place. How Tennessee Williams is that?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Patron For Inclusive Church
This post is virtually lifted from Of Course I Could Be Wrong. It's too good to pass up, and MadPriest has said we could take what we want from his blog. I suspect that most of my readers already read MadPriest, but just in case, I offer it here.
From Ekklesia:
The Anglican Archbishop of Mexico, the Most Rev Carlos Touche-Porter, is to be a Patron of the movement Inclusive Church, which works for an open Christian community. The announcement was made in a press statement today.
The Anglican Church of Mexico was born as a part of the struggle for human rights in Mexico.
The Archbishop said “As an Anglican committed to promote inclusiveness and diversity in our Church, I rejoice, celebrate and support the ministry of Inclusive Church. May the Anglican Communion continue to be a house of prayer for all people, where everyone is welcome, valued and respected”.
....
Archbishop Carlos preached at a service hosted by Affirming Catholicism in Westminster Abbey on Monday 26th February. His sermon can be found at [this site].
Please. Go read his beautiful sermon.
From Ekklesia:
The Anglican Archbishop of Mexico, the Most Rev Carlos Touche-Porter, is to be a Patron of the movement Inclusive Church, which works for an open Christian community. The announcement was made in a press statement today.
The Anglican Church of Mexico was born as a part of the struggle for human rights in Mexico.
The Archbishop said “As an Anglican committed to promote inclusiveness and diversity in our Church, I rejoice, celebrate and support the ministry of Inclusive Church. May the Anglican Communion continue to be a house of prayer for all people, where everyone is welcome, valued and respected”.
....
Archbishop Carlos preached at a service hosted by Affirming Catholicism in Westminster Abbey on Monday 26th February. His sermon can be found at [this site].
Please. Go read his beautiful sermon.
Monday, March 12, 2007
The List Is Long
As some of you know, I spent 60 years of my life in the Roman Catholic Church. Since I left and became a member of the Episcopal Church, I have tried to keep my criticism of the RCC to a minimum. Many of my family members and friends are RC, and I generally don't make negative comments about the church, unless others bring up the subject first. Then, I might agree or disagree. I admire those who remain with the church and try to bring about change from within, but I reached the point where I could not do that.
Then, too, I hesitate because the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are far from perfect, as we are seeing, and there would be an element of pot-kettle in the criticism.
As I debated with myself whether to post what I'm going to say here, I read MadPriest's post on the interference of the RC hierarchy in the political process in Scotland, and I remembered the interference in our own most recent presidential election by the pope and certain of the American bishops having to do with John Kerry's views on abortion, interference which may have thrown the election to Bush, since the vote count was quite close, and I decided go ahead.
When the present pope was, as yet, Cardinal Ratzinger, he was the Prefect of the Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the Roman Catholic Church, one of the congregations of the Roman Curia. His was the responsibility to guard the teachings of the church throughout the world from doctrinal error.
He visited the US periodically to exercise his authority as Prefect, and he was known as "The Enforcer". Certain of the bishops, priests and, especially, the administrators and faculty of the Catholic seminaries and universities dreaded the visits, because those who strayed from orthodoxy - according to the Vatican - were disiplined in various ways.
I attended a Jesuit university in the 1950s, and even with the censorship that was in place in those days, the good fathers did manage to convey the idea that thinking is a good thing. I never recovered from that. Of course, I had been doing a good bit of thinking on my own, but the Jesuits reinforced the idea that it was OK to think.
That being said, I receiived a grade of "C" in my course on Christian marriage, because I persisted in annoying my professor with comments about this passage from Matthew 5:32-35:
But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
My thought was that this passage indicated one reason for permitting divorce and remarriage. He said no, and tried to explain why it did not, but not entirely to my satisfaction. I continued the disussion after he had given me his definitive anwer, and it is my belief that my grade was the result of my persistance in questioning him about the passage. Of course, I could be wrong. It was not a difficult class, and that grade was the only "C" to besmirch my academic record at the university.
But, I digress. This article by John L. Allen Jr. from The National Catholic Reporter from 1999, before the cardinal became pope, is quite enlightening. It is long, therefore, I will give you a few quotes in the event you are disinclined to read the whole piece. Of course, I do recommend that you read the whole thing.
Some say his 18 years as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the church’s guardian of orthodoxy, have been the intellectual salvation of Roman Catholicism in a time of confusion and compromise.
Others believe Ratzinger will be remembered as the architect of John Paul’s internal Kulturkampf, intimidating and punishing thinkers in order to restore a model of church -- clerical, dogmatic and rule-bound -- many hoped had been swept away by the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 assembly of bishops that sought to renew Catholicism and open it to the world. Ratzinger’s campaign bears comparison to the anti-modernist drive in the early part of the century or Pius XII’s crackdown in the 1950s, critics say, but is even more disheartening because it followed a moment of such optimism and new life.
His record includes:
* Theologians disciplined, such as Fr. Charles Curran, an American moral theologian who advocates a right to public dissent from official church teaching; Fr. Matthew Fox, an American known for his work on creation spirituality; Sr. Ivone Gebara, a Brazilian whose thinking blends liberation theology with environmental concerns; and Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, a Sri Lankan interested in how Christianity can be expressed through Eastern concepts;
* Movements blocked, such as liberation theology and, more recently, religious pluralism (the drive to affirm other religions on their own terms);
* Progressive bishops hobbled, including Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle, reproached by Rome for his tolerance of ministry to homosexuals and his involvement in progressive political causes, and Bishop Dom Pedro Casaldáliga of Sao Félix, Brazil, criticized for his political engagement beyond the borders of his own diocese;
* Episcopal conferences brought to heel on issues such as inclusive language and their own teaching authority;
* The borders of infallibility expanded, to include such disparate points as the ban on women’s ordination and the invalidity of ordinations in the Anglican church.
From 1999, opinions on whether Cardinal Ratzinger could be elected pope:
There is still the possibility, of course, that Ratzinger will not end his career as the hierarchy’s No. 2 man. At some point there will be another conclave, and Ratzinger, if he’s still around, will be in the running for the top job. Could he become pope?
Fessio thinks it could happen. “If the present pope died suddenly, they might want an older person for interim continuity,” he said. “Ratzinger has many abilities the rest of the cardinals are aware of -- his command of languages, his knowledge of cultures, his knowledge of the faith.”
Reese, however, thinks it unlikely. For one thing, Ratzinger would be almost 75, and he doesn’t think the cardinals will elect someone so close to the official retirement age. Anyway, Ratzinger’s “become too controversial. They will look for someone who can heal divisions rather than exacerbate them,” Reese said. He added, “I could be wrong.”
Allen goes on to say:
Assuming Ratzinger’s tenure in the Vatican ends with his present job, what is one to make of it? Perhaps Waldstein is right that the battle lines are too hardened in the present for any definitive judgment. Maybe it will take the perspective that comes only with time to allow observers to get past the polemics and appreciate his real impact on the church.
Jacques Maritain once said, “The important thing is not to be a success. The important thing is to be in history bearing the witness.” In that light, perhaps Ratzinger will come to be judged positively. He has borne a consistent witness, stood fast for his own vision -- which he would argue is the vision of Christ. It is with such considerations in view that Fessio boldly predicts Ratzinger will be remembered as “one of the great saints of our time.”
Yet the stark divisions, the ruptures in the church Ratzinger has helped to create these past 18 years must also be part of his legacy. Many Catholics can’t help thinking it could all have been different. The same truths could have been presented, the same errors exposed, in more pastoral fashion. The wounds could have been less frequent, less deep, quicker to heal.
From the lengthy quotes, do you get the idea that I really want you to read the whole article?
A longer list of those he disciplined, in one form or another, is found, once again, in The National Catholic Reporter. The names include some of the finest thinkers in the church.
This is the man who is the present Pope Benedict. And, as far as I know, he still has not decided whether Roman Catholic married couples will be permitted to use condoms if one of the parties is infected with HIV.
Then, too, I hesitate because the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are far from perfect, as we are seeing, and there would be an element of pot-kettle in the criticism.
As I debated with myself whether to post what I'm going to say here, I read MadPriest's post on the interference of the RC hierarchy in the political process in Scotland, and I remembered the interference in our own most recent presidential election by the pope and certain of the American bishops having to do with John Kerry's views on abortion, interference which may have thrown the election to Bush, since the vote count was quite close, and I decided go ahead.
When the present pope was, as yet, Cardinal Ratzinger, he was the Prefect of the Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the Roman Catholic Church, one of the congregations of the Roman Curia. His was the responsibility to guard the teachings of the church throughout the world from doctrinal error.
He visited the US periodically to exercise his authority as Prefect, and he was known as "The Enforcer". Certain of the bishops, priests and, especially, the administrators and faculty of the Catholic seminaries and universities dreaded the visits, because those who strayed from orthodoxy - according to the Vatican - were disiplined in various ways.
I attended a Jesuit university in the 1950s, and even with the censorship that was in place in those days, the good fathers did manage to convey the idea that thinking is a good thing. I never recovered from that. Of course, I had been doing a good bit of thinking on my own, but the Jesuits reinforced the idea that it was OK to think.
That being said, I receiived a grade of "C" in my course on Christian marriage, because I persisted in annoying my professor with comments about this passage from Matthew 5:32-35:
But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
My thought was that this passage indicated one reason for permitting divorce and remarriage. He said no, and tried to explain why it did not, but not entirely to my satisfaction. I continued the disussion after he had given me his definitive anwer, and it is my belief that my grade was the result of my persistance in questioning him about the passage. Of course, I could be wrong. It was not a difficult class, and that grade was the only "C" to besmirch my academic record at the university.
But, I digress. This article by John L. Allen Jr. from The National Catholic Reporter from 1999, before the cardinal became pope, is quite enlightening. It is long, therefore, I will give you a few quotes in the event you are disinclined to read the whole piece. Of course, I do recommend that you read the whole thing.
Some say his 18 years as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the church’s guardian of orthodoxy, have been the intellectual salvation of Roman Catholicism in a time of confusion and compromise.
Others believe Ratzinger will be remembered as the architect of John Paul’s internal Kulturkampf, intimidating and punishing thinkers in order to restore a model of church -- clerical, dogmatic and rule-bound -- many hoped had been swept away by the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 assembly of bishops that sought to renew Catholicism and open it to the world. Ratzinger’s campaign bears comparison to the anti-modernist drive in the early part of the century or Pius XII’s crackdown in the 1950s, critics say, but is even more disheartening because it followed a moment of such optimism and new life.
His record includes:
* Theologians disciplined, such as Fr. Charles Curran, an American moral theologian who advocates a right to public dissent from official church teaching; Fr. Matthew Fox, an American known for his work on creation spirituality; Sr. Ivone Gebara, a Brazilian whose thinking blends liberation theology with environmental concerns; and Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, a Sri Lankan interested in how Christianity can be expressed through Eastern concepts;
* Movements blocked, such as liberation theology and, more recently, religious pluralism (the drive to affirm other religions on their own terms);
* Progressive bishops hobbled, including Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle, reproached by Rome for his tolerance of ministry to homosexuals and his involvement in progressive political causes, and Bishop Dom Pedro Casaldáliga of Sao Félix, Brazil, criticized for his political engagement beyond the borders of his own diocese;
* Episcopal conferences brought to heel on issues such as inclusive language and their own teaching authority;
* The borders of infallibility expanded, to include such disparate points as the ban on women’s ordination and the invalidity of ordinations in the Anglican church.
From 1999, opinions on whether Cardinal Ratzinger could be elected pope:
There is still the possibility, of course, that Ratzinger will not end his career as the hierarchy’s No. 2 man. At some point there will be another conclave, and Ratzinger, if he’s still around, will be in the running for the top job. Could he become pope?
Fessio thinks it could happen. “If the present pope died suddenly, they might want an older person for interim continuity,” he said. “Ratzinger has many abilities the rest of the cardinals are aware of -- his command of languages, his knowledge of cultures, his knowledge of the faith.”
Reese, however, thinks it unlikely. For one thing, Ratzinger would be almost 75, and he doesn’t think the cardinals will elect someone so close to the official retirement age. Anyway, Ratzinger’s “become too controversial. They will look for someone who can heal divisions rather than exacerbate them,” Reese said. He added, “I could be wrong.”
Allen goes on to say:
Assuming Ratzinger’s tenure in the Vatican ends with his present job, what is one to make of it? Perhaps Waldstein is right that the battle lines are too hardened in the present for any definitive judgment. Maybe it will take the perspective that comes only with time to allow observers to get past the polemics and appreciate his real impact on the church.
Jacques Maritain once said, “The important thing is not to be a success. The important thing is to be in history bearing the witness.” In that light, perhaps Ratzinger will come to be judged positively. He has borne a consistent witness, stood fast for his own vision -- which he would argue is the vision of Christ. It is with such considerations in view that Fessio boldly predicts Ratzinger will be remembered as “one of the great saints of our time.”
Yet the stark divisions, the ruptures in the church Ratzinger has helped to create these past 18 years must also be part of his legacy. Many Catholics can’t help thinking it could all have been different. The same truths could have been presented, the same errors exposed, in more pastoral fashion. The wounds could have been less frequent, less deep, quicker to heal.
From the lengthy quotes, do you get the idea that I really want you to read the whole article?
A longer list of those he disciplined, in one form or another, is found, once again, in The National Catholic Reporter. The names include some of the finest thinkers in the church.
This is the man who is the present Pope Benedict. And, as far as I know, he still has not decided whether Roman Catholic married couples will be permitted to use condoms if one of the parties is infected with HIV.
Feast Day Of St. Gregory The Great
We celebrate the feast day of the other Gregory today.
Only two popes, Leo I and Gregory I, have been given the popular title of "the Great." Both served during difficult times of barbarian invasions in Italy; and during Gregory's term of office, Rome was also faced with famine and epidemics.
Now that Gregory has taken his place among the blessed in heaven, I wonder if he cringes about "The Great" added to his name, considering that Jesus told us what would happen to the greatest among us. Is he in the lowest place now, or does God disregard the description, because Gregory did not confer it on himself?
His influence on the forms of public worship throughout Western Europe was enormous. He founded a school for the training of church musicians, and Gregorian chant (plainchant) is named for him. The schedule of Scripture readings for the various Sundays of the year, and the accompanying prayers (many of them written by him), in use throughout most of Western Christendom for the next thirteen centuries, is largely due to his passion for organization.
Thank God for Gregory's support for the gifted musicians who gave us the lovely Gregorian chant.
English-speaking Christians will remember Gregory for sending a party of missionaries headed by Augustine of Canterbury (not to be confused with the more famous Augustine of Hippo) to preach the Gospel to the pagan Anglo-Saxon tribes that had invaded England and largely conquered or displaced the Celtic Christians previously living there. Gregory had originally hoped to go to England as a missionary himself, but was pressed into service elsewhere, first as apocrisiarius and then as bishop of Rome. He accordingly sent others, but took an active interest in their work, writing numerous letters both to Augustine and his monks and to their English converts.
Gregory served the Christian church well, although he was not perfect, (who among us is?) and it is up to God to decide who is great. Thanks be to God.
PRAYER:
Almighty and merciful God, who raised up Gregory of Rome to be a servant of the servants of God, and inspired him to send missionaries to preach the Gospel to the English people: Preserve in your Church the catholic and apostolic faith they taught, that your people, being fruitful in every good work, may receive the crown of glory that never fades away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
Only two popes, Leo I and Gregory I, have been given the popular title of "the Great." Both served during difficult times of barbarian invasions in Italy; and during Gregory's term of office, Rome was also faced with famine and epidemics.
Now that Gregory has taken his place among the blessed in heaven, I wonder if he cringes about "The Great" added to his name, considering that Jesus told us what would happen to the greatest among us. Is he in the lowest place now, or does God disregard the description, because Gregory did not confer it on himself?
His influence on the forms of public worship throughout Western Europe was enormous. He founded a school for the training of church musicians, and Gregorian chant (plainchant) is named for him. The schedule of Scripture readings for the various Sundays of the year, and the accompanying prayers (many of them written by him), in use throughout most of Western Christendom for the next thirteen centuries, is largely due to his passion for organization.
Thank God for Gregory's support for the gifted musicians who gave us the lovely Gregorian chant.
English-speaking Christians will remember Gregory for sending a party of missionaries headed by Augustine of Canterbury (not to be confused with the more famous Augustine of Hippo) to preach the Gospel to the pagan Anglo-Saxon tribes that had invaded England and largely conquered or displaced the Celtic Christians previously living there. Gregory had originally hoped to go to England as a missionary himself, but was pressed into service elsewhere, first as apocrisiarius and then as bishop of Rome. He accordingly sent others, but took an active interest in their work, writing numerous letters both to Augustine and his monks and to their English converts.
Gregory served the Christian church well, although he was not perfect, (who among us is?) and it is up to God to decide who is great. Thanks be to God.
PRAYER:
Almighty and merciful God, who raised up Gregory of Rome to be a servant of the servants of God, and inspired him to send missionaries to preach the Gospel to the English people: Preserve in your Church the catholic and apostolic faith they taught, that your people, being fruitful in every good work, may receive the crown of glory that never fades away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Alpha - Part 2
Part 2 of Alpha was better than Part 1. I didn't get the feeling of watching a Billy Graham event this time. I have nothing against Billy Graham, but you can't say that he is Anglican, and I did not find the first Alpha Anglican. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nicky Gumbel's presentation is low-key compared to the TV evangelists. The subject of this program was "Who Is Jesus?" What followed was a teaching on Jesus as God and man. I'd rather not give away too many details, because some reading this may do the course. I'd rather focus on my impressions.
One thing that puzzled me is that last week we were led in the prayer to accept Jesus into our hearts. Seems to me that Part 2 should have come first, especially for those who were not knowledgeable about Jesus. Before you invite Jesus into your heart, wouldn't you want to know a bit about him?
As the program is pretty basic, I was not sure what those of us more familiar with the basics of the faith are to take from it, except perhaps some sort of renewal of faith.
What caught my attention this time was the slick production style demonstrated in the series. The lectures take place in Holy Trinity Church Brompton in London. The camera focused on the audience (or should I say congregation?) from time to time, and every person shown was raptly attentive. If there were any who were bored-looking or fidgety, we did not get to see them. The church makes for good background for the cameras. Here's a picture if you want to have a look at the interior. Sorry, I don't know how to do pictures on my blog.
One thing that puzzled me is that last week we were led in the prayer to accept Jesus into our hearts. Seems to me that Part 2 should have come first, especially for those who were not knowledgeable about Jesus. Before you invite Jesus into your heart, wouldn't you want to know a bit about him?
As the program is pretty basic, I was not sure what those of us more familiar with the basics of the faith are to take from it, except perhaps some sort of renewal of faith.
What caught my attention this time was the slick production style demonstrated in the series. The lectures take place in Holy Trinity Church Brompton in London. The camera focused on the audience (or should I say congregation?) from time to time, and every person shown was raptly attentive. If there were any who were bored-looking or fidgety, we did not get to see them. The church makes for good background for the cameras. Here's a picture if you want to have a look at the interior. Sorry, I don't know how to do pictures on my blog.
Psalm 27
Verse 1 of the psalm:
The Lord is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the stronghold of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?
The Lord is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the stronghold of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?
A Good Man Who Needs Prayer
A Saskatoon priest is facing unemployment for agreeing to marry gay and lesbian couples. Shawn Sanford Beck has been told by the Anglican church that he will lose his abilities to perform duties of the priesthood by the end of the month. As a result, Beck will also lose his job, working with a Lutheran inner-city project.
However, Beck says he is making a stand because of conscience. He will not recant his faith, but says he will not back down from his decision. He says the situation is an act of civil disobedience within the church and calls himself a priest in exile.
Shawn is a priest committed to bringing justice to the oppressed. His work in the inner city is among impoverished native Canadians where he is working towards enabling them to start to run the agency themselves. He is on the Saskatoon diocesan synod, he lectures and gives talks on various issues, including liturgy, and he is an associate priest at the cathedral.
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHURCH
Conversion of St. Paul, 2007
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
As you are no doubt aware, our church finds itself in a turbulent, confusing, and painful time. Many issues are involved in our current struggles: authority, hermeneutics, ethical and theological visions and convictions, and the complex relationships of gender, power, and patriarchy. Though the “presenting issue” is the place of LGBTT folk in the Body of Christ, the roots of our conflict go much deeper.
As a priest in the midst of this struggle, it has become clear to me after much prayer and soul-searching, that my spiritual conscience can no longer abide by the laws which I am required to uphold in regard to the blessing of same-sex unions and marriages. It is my conviction that our current ban on such practices is theologically problematic and fundamentally unjust. Upholding such a position (even unwillingly) forces me to bend severely (if not break) my priestly vows, my baptismal covenant, and the Word of God inscribed within my heart. I therefore publicly declare that I will, when requested, officiate at same-sex marriages and offer blessing upon committed same sex unions. I will no longer discriminate against homosexual people when it comes to the exercise of my priestly duties.
I am aware, of course, that the stance I am taking will likely lead to serious consequences, and I am prepared to face these consequences openly and publicly. It may be helpful to consider my action a form of ecclesiastical civil disobedience. With conflict and rhetoric rising in the worldwide communion, too many queer brothers and sisters are being further marginalized and excluded. In some parts of the world, this takes the form of outright violence: as I write, the coordinator of Changing Attitude (a sister organization of Integrity) in Nigeria is living under a death threat from his “fellow Christians”. Here at home, it is often a more subtle form of oppression: exclusion rendered invisible. As a priest and leader in the church, my complicity in upholding our current law makes me at least partially responsible for the ongoing suffering of LGBTT Christians, and I can no longer take part in that. If my current action helps render visible that which has been made invisible, then I will be happy to bear the consequences. I too will stand “outside the gate”, where so many other queer Christians have been sent.
To be clear, there are three main reasons for my choice of taking this stance. On one level, this is a clear issue of justice, solidarity, and human rights. On another level, this is an issue of evangelism: our church’s continuing discrimination against LGBTT people is a scandal which keeps many of my peers from being able to hear the good news of Jesus. And finally, this is an issue of personal integrity: I can no longer, in good conscience, uphold a law which I consider unjust, as well as theologically deficient.
Some might say that my actions sidestep the legitimate process of discernment underway in the church. I understand that concern, and I have wrestled long and hard over what to do, working within our established canons and structures to the best of my ability. However, I also see my current course of action as being part of the wider church’s discernment. We have heard many arguments about the cost of blessing same-sex marriages and ordaining unclosetted queer folk; we also need to recognize that there is a cost as well to not moving in this direction. The cost is a huge amount of suffering for LGBTT Christians who are pressured to remain silent. The cost is that some of us, straight and gay, will no longer be able to abide the status quo, and we will simply cease to obey an unjust law. The cost is that others will quietly leave. That reality needs to be part of our church’s discernment. In this, I am not leaving the church, nor relinquishing my orders. Instead, I offer my current action, with all its consequences, for the ongoing discernment of the Body.
Yours in the unquiet peace of Christ,
The Rev. Shawn Sanford Beck
However, Beck says he is making a stand because of conscience. He will not recant his faith, but says he will not back down from his decision. He says the situation is an act of civil disobedience within the church and calls himself a priest in exile.
Shawn is a priest committed to bringing justice to the oppressed. His work in the inner city is among impoverished native Canadians where he is working towards enabling them to start to run the agency themselves. He is on the Saskatoon diocesan synod, he lectures and gives talks on various issues, including liturgy, and he is an associate priest at the cathedral.
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHURCH
Conversion of St. Paul, 2007
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
As you are no doubt aware, our church finds itself in a turbulent, confusing, and painful time. Many issues are involved in our current struggles: authority, hermeneutics, ethical and theological visions and convictions, and the complex relationships of gender, power, and patriarchy. Though the “presenting issue” is the place of LGBTT folk in the Body of Christ, the roots of our conflict go much deeper.
As a priest in the midst of this struggle, it has become clear to me after much prayer and soul-searching, that my spiritual conscience can no longer abide by the laws which I am required to uphold in regard to the blessing of same-sex unions and marriages. It is my conviction that our current ban on such practices is theologically problematic and fundamentally unjust. Upholding such a position (even unwillingly) forces me to bend severely (if not break) my priestly vows, my baptismal covenant, and the Word of God inscribed within my heart. I therefore publicly declare that I will, when requested, officiate at same-sex marriages and offer blessing upon committed same sex unions. I will no longer discriminate against homosexual people when it comes to the exercise of my priestly duties.
I am aware, of course, that the stance I am taking will likely lead to serious consequences, and I am prepared to face these consequences openly and publicly. It may be helpful to consider my action a form of ecclesiastical civil disobedience. With conflict and rhetoric rising in the worldwide communion, too many queer brothers and sisters are being further marginalized and excluded. In some parts of the world, this takes the form of outright violence: as I write, the coordinator of Changing Attitude (a sister organization of Integrity) in Nigeria is living under a death threat from his “fellow Christians”. Here at home, it is often a more subtle form of oppression: exclusion rendered invisible. As a priest and leader in the church, my complicity in upholding our current law makes me at least partially responsible for the ongoing suffering of LGBTT Christians, and I can no longer take part in that. If my current action helps render visible that which has been made invisible, then I will be happy to bear the consequences. I too will stand “outside the gate”, where so many other queer Christians have been sent.
To be clear, there are three main reasons for my choice of taking this stance. On one level, this is a clear issue of justice, solidarity, and human rights. On another level, this is an issue of evangelism: our church’s continuing discrimination against LGBTT people is a scandal which keeps many of my peers from being able to hear the good news of Jesus. And finally, this is an issue of personal integrity: I can no longer, in good conscience, uphold a law which I consider unjust, as well as theologically deficient.
Some might say that my actions sidestep the legitimate process of discernment underway in the church. I understand that concern, and I have wrestled long and hard over what to do, working within our established canons and structures to the best of my ability. However, I also see my current course of action as being part of the wider church’s discernment. We have heard many arguments about the cost of blessing same-sex marriages and ordaining unclosetted queer folk; we also need to recognize that there is a cost as well to not moving in this direction. The cost is a huge amount of suffering for LGBTT Christians who are pressured to remain silent. The cost is that some of us, straight and gay, will no longer be able to abide the status quo, and we will simply cease to obey an unjust law. The cost is that others will quietly leave. That reality needs to be part of our church’s discernment. In this, I am not leaving the church, nor relinquishing my orders. Instead, I offer my current action, with all its consequences, for the ongoing discernment of the Body.
Yours in the unquiet peace of Christ,
The Rev. Shawn Sanford Beck
Friday, March 9, 2007
Lady Sophia
Today is the feast day of St. Gregory of Nyssa.
The lectionary readings include this beautiful passage from the Book of Wisdom:
For wisdom is more mobile than any motion;
because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things.
For she is a breath of the power of God,
and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;
therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.
For she is a reflection of eternal light,
a spotless mirror of the working of God,
and an image of his goodness.
Although she is but one, she can do all things,
and while remaining in herself, she renews all things;
in every generation she passes into holy souls
and makes them friends of God, and prophets;
for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom.
Wisdom 7:24-28
The lectionary readings include this beautiful passage from the Book of Wisdom:
For wisdom is more mobile than any motion;
because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things.
For she is a breath of the power of God,
and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;
therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.
For she is a reflection of eternal light,
a spotless mirror of the working of God,
and an image of his goodness.
Although she is but one, she can do all things,
and while remaining in herself, she renews all things;
in every generation she passes into holy souls
and makes them friends of God, and prophets;
for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom.
Wisdom 7:24-28
Thursday, March 8, 2007
My Windsor Bishop
Since the destruction in the Diocese of Louisiana from Hurricane Katrina and the levee failures which resulted in the flood in the greater New Orleans area, Charles Jenkins, the bishop of the Diocese of Louisiana, has had great burdens to bear. In addition to working with local Episcopal churches on recovery and rebuilding, the diocese has assisted the people of the area to obtain the necessities of life in the immediate aftermath, and offered help in rebuilding their lives in the longer term. He has worked with ministers of other denominations in New Orleans to preserve and restore the soul and spirit of the city and to find solutions to the horrific wave of crime since the disasters.
Bishop Jenkins belongs to the alliance of Windsor bishops, those who follow the recommendations of the Windsor Report.
From what I know, in my diocese this means that there is a moratorium on ordaining gays and lesbians in partnered relationships to any of the orders of the church unless they declare themselves celibate.
In my parish, gays and lesbians serve in leadership positions on the vestry, as Lay Eucharistic Ministers, lectors, and in Sunday school. One member of our community has completed the requirements for ordination to the permanent diaconate, but she will not be ordained, because she is a lesbian woman in a partnered relationship.
I know of no listening process at present. I have heard that just prior to Katrina and the levee failures, a committee was being set up, but since Katrina, nothing has moved forward.
When the Windsor bishops met at Camp Allen in Texas in September 19-22, 2006, the group sent this letter to the House of Bishops after the meeting. Bishop Jenkins did not attend the meeting.
After the meeting in January 3-5, 2007, which Bishop Jenkins did attend, no summary was issued, as far as I know. Bishop Katharine has said that she was not invited to the recent meeting at Camp Allen In Texas. According to the article in the Living Church which I linked to above, several bishops from outside the US were invited:
In addition to bishops of The Episcopal Church, special invitations to Camp Allen were extended to several international bishops including Archbishop Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies and chair of the committee working on the development of an Anglican Covenant; Archbishop Donald Mtetemela, Primate of Tanzania; and Bishop Michael Scott-Joynt of the Diocese of Winchester in the Church of England. The Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly, Bishop of Texas, was the host and convener.
My bishop has not spoken out at length about the controversies swirling around the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, therefore, I am not quite clear about where my diocese will be when the dust settles. I decided to write him a letter asking several questions:
1. The Windsor Report calls for a listening process. Is there presently a listening process in the diocese?
2. What was the subject or subjects of the recent meeting of the Windsor bishops at Camp Allen in Texas?
3. Why are no reports issued after the meetings?
4. Why was Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori not invited to the Camp Allen meeting?
5. Were foreign bishops invited? To what purpose? (I now know the answer to the first of these questions)
6. Why were no clergy or lay people present?
7. Will you welcome Bishop Katharine to visit the Diocese of Louisiana?
8. Will you seek Alternative Pastoral Oversight for the Diocese of Louisiana?
9. Why do we need a covenant in the Anglican Communion? Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us a New Covenant. Why do we need another covenant?
My letter went out to the bishop earlier this week. We shall see.
Bishop Jenkins belongs to the alliance of Windsor bishops, those who follow the recommendations of the Windsor Report.
From what I know, in my diocese this means that there is a moratorium on ordaining gays and lesbians in partnered relationships to any of the orders of the church unless they declare themselves celibate.
In my parish, gays and lesbians serve in leadership positions on the vestry, as Lay Eucharistic Ministers, lectors, and in Sunday school. One member of our community has completed the requirements for ordination to the permanent diaconate, but she will not be ordained, because she is a lesbian woman in a partnered relationship.
I know of no listening process at present. I have heard that just prior to Katrina and the levee failures, a committee was being set up, but since Katrina, nothing has moved forward.
When the Windsor bishops met at Camp Allen in Texas in September 19-22, 2006, the group sent this letter to the House of Bishops after the meeting. Bishop Jenkins did not attend the meeting.
After the meeting in January 3-5, 2007, which Bishop Jenkins did attend, no summary was issued, as far as I know. Bishop Katharine has said that she was not invited to the recent meeting at Camp Allen In Texas. According to the article in the Living Church which I linked to above, several bishops from outside the US were invited:
In addition to bishops of The Episcopal Church, special invitations to Camp Allen were extended to several international bishops including Archbishop Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies and chair of the committee working on the development of an Anglican Covenant; Archbishop Donald Mtetemela, Primate of Tanzania; and Bishop Michael Scott-Joynt of the Diocese of Winchester in the Church of England. The Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly, Bishop of Texas, was the host and convener.
My bishop has not spoken out at length about the controversies swirling around the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, therefore, I am not quite clear about where my diocese will be when the dust settles. I decided to write him a letter asking several questions:
1. The Windsor Report calls for a listening process. Is there presently a listening process in the diocese?
2. What was the subject or subjects of the recent meeting of the Windsor bishops at Camp Allen in Texas?
3. Why are no reports issued after the meetings?
4. Why was Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori not invited to the Camp Allen meeting?
5. Were foreign bishops invited? To what purpose? (I now know the answer to the first of these questions)
6. Why were no clergy or lay people present?
7. Will you welcome Bishop Katharine to visit the Diocese of Louisiana?
8. Will you seek Alternative Pastoral Oversight for the Diocese of Louisiana?
9. Why do we need a covenant in the Anglican Communion? Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us a New Covenant. Why do we need another covenant?
My letter went out to the bishop earlier this week. We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)