Thought For The Day - If God Cries

If God cries, (we know that Jesus wept) I have the sense that the possible break-up of the Anglican Communion is not No. 1 on the list of what makes God cry.

Feast Day Of Robert Grosseteste

A 13th century portrait of Grosseteste from Wiki.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Robert Grosseteste - Bishop of Lincoln and one of the most learned men of the Middle Ages; b. about 1175; d. 9 October, 1253. He came from Stradbroke in the county of Suffolk.
....

Grosseteste was a man of such varied interests and his career was so many-sided that it will be better to touch separately on his numerous activities than to attempt a chronological account of his life. His work as a teacher, a philosopher, and a man of learning, is naturally more especially connected with his Oxford career, but his episcopal duties, so zealously performed, did not diminish his scholarly interests, while the fact that Oxford was in his diocese, and in a sense under his government, kept him in the closest touch with the university....Though he was from many points of view a schoolman, his interests lay rather in moral questions than in logical or metaphysical. In his lectures he laid more stress on the study of Scripture than on intellectual speculation. His real originality lay in his effort to get at the original authorities, and in his insistence on experiment in science. It was this which drew from Roger Bacon the many expressions of enthusiastic admiration which are to be found in his works. In the "Opus Tertium" he says: "No one really knew the sciences, except the Lord Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, by reason of his length of life and experience, as well as of his studiousness and zeal. He knew mathematics and perspective, and there was nothing which he was unable to know, and at the same time he was sufficiently acquainted with languages to be able to understand the saints and the philosophers and the wise men of antiquity."

Grosseteste seems a true Renaissance man coming out of the Middle Ages. The testimonies to his learning seem nearly beyond belief, but the work he left behind attests that these references were not exaggerated.

From James Kiefer at the Lectionary:

Grosseteste's scholarly writings embraced many fields of learning. He translated into Latin the Ethics of Aristotle and the theological works of John of Damascus and of the fifth-century writer known as Dionysius the Areopagite. He was skilled in poetry, music, architecture, mathematics, astronomy, optics, and physics (one of his pupils was Roger Bacon). His writings on the first chapter of Genesis include an interesting anticipation of modern cosmological ideas. (He read that the first thing created was light, and said that the universe began with pure energy exploding from a point source.) He knew Hebrew and Greek, and his Biblical studies were a notable contribution to the scholarship of the day.

His conclusion on the origins of the universe, coming out of the 13th century, is astonishing to me. Many churchmen of today seem quite dismissive of science and scientific methods. What a breath of fresh air blowing back from the Middle Ages to reteach us that we Christians have nothing to fear from science. We should rather embrace it, with Grosseteste as one of our examples, and trust that the knowledge gleaned from science may, in fact, draw us closer to God.

Back to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It was while at Oxford that Grosseteste formed an intimate and lifelong friendship with the newly arrived Franciscans. It is quite possible that he was chancellor when the friars first came to Oxford, the Dominicans in 1221 and the Franciscans three years later; he at any rate befriended the latter in a very practical manner by being the first lecturer in the school which was one of the earliest of their very simple buildings. Short of becoming a friar himself, as indeed he at one time thought of doing, he could not have identified himself more closely with the sons of St. Francis, and his influence with them was proportionately great. He must have helped to give theEnglish Franciscans that devotion to learning which was one of their most distinguishing characteristics, and which affected the whole history of the order.
....

The diocese which for eighteen years Grosseteste administered was the largest in England; it extended from the Humber to the Thames, and included no less than nine counties; and the work of government and reform was rendered particularly difficult by the litigious character of the age. In every direction the bishop would find powerful corporations exceedingly tenacious in their rights. From the very first he revived the practice of visitations, and made them exceedingly searching. His circular letters to his archdeacons, and his constitutions enlighten us on the many reforms which he considered necessary both for the clergy and their flocks.

These visitations, however, brought the bishop into conflict with the dean and chapter, who claimed exemption for themselves and their churches. The dispute broke out in 1239 and lasted six years. Grosseteste discussed the whole question of episcopal authority in a long letter (Letter cxxvii, "Rob. Grosseteste Epistolæ", Rolls Series, 1861) to the dean and chapter, and was forced to suspend and ultimately to deprive the dean, while the canons refused to attend in the chapter house. There were appeals to the pope and counter appeals and several attempts at arbitration. Eventually, Innocent IV settled the question, in the bishop's favour, at Lyons in 1245.

Oh, could we only return to those halcyon, peaceful days in the church off the past. We seem shocked that the people of God are fighting amongst themselves at the present time, but we forget that it was ever thus. There were no periods without conflict in the history of Christianity.

The Bishop of Lincoln held a high position in the State, but his relations with the civil authorities were unusually difficult, as he had to carry out the duties of his office during such a period of misgovernment as the reign of Henry III. Personally, he was usually on friendly terms with the king and his family; but he was often in opposition to the royal policy, both in ecclesiastical and civil matters, and threatened on one occasion to lay the king's chapel under an interdict.
....

Grosseteste before his death was full of anxiety for the state of the country and dread for the civil war which was so soon to break out. He was buried in his cathedral. Very soon he was regarded almost universally in England as a saint. The chroniclers tell of miracles at his tomb, and pilgrims visited it. Early in the following century a Bishop of Lincoln granted them an indulgence. Efforts were made by different prelates, by Edward I, and by the University of Oxford to procure his canonization by the pope, but they were all unsuccessful.

I'm pleased that the Episcopal Church has deemed it fitting to set aside a day to celebrate the feast of St. Robert Grosseteste. He's "a man for all seasons".

READINGS:

Psalm 112:1-9 or 23
Acts 20:28-32
Luke 16:10-15

PRAYER
O God our heavenly Father, who raised up your faithful servant Robert Grosseteste to be a bishop and pastor in your Church and to feed your flock: Give to all pastors abundant gifts of your Holy Spirit, that they may minister in your household as true servants of Christ and stewards of your divine mysteries; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.

More on St. Bill

Ormonde Plater at Through The Dust has a picture and more information on Bill Richardson, whose story I linked to in "A Saint Has Died".

On Torture

Image from AntiWar.com.

The picture above is one of the least cruel at the the website. I could not bear to post any of the crueler depictions of the treatment of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and have to look at it every time I went to my blog. But I keep in mind that the prisoners are living in the nightmare, and not simply hearing the stories and seeing the pictures.

I've been digesting the long article on torture that was published in the New York Times last week. I printed it so I could read it more than once. Although there's much commentary on the article, I thought I should take note, but I've been putting it off and finding other things to write about, because of a sort of dread.

From the New York Times:

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

James Comey seems to have had a conscience, but he's gone. The secret opinions and secret signings have no place in the functioning of our democratic government, although the democratic part of the phrase seems to be disappearing rather quickly as an accurate description.

Congress and the courts have attempted to rein in the Bush maladministration on the treatment of prisoners, but under a veil of secrecy, the shocking maltreatment of prisoners continues. Abu Ghraib is no longer used by the US to house prisoners, but now we have Guantanamo and the "black sites" in unknown countries where torture can be practiced without notice or interference. The US courts have said that the prisoners must be removed from the "black sites", but because of secrecy, we're not sure that the orders of the courts have been followed.

When Alberto Gonzales was appointed Attorney General, I thought, at the time, that there was probably nothing that Bush or Darth Cheney would ask him to do that he would refuse.

The definition of lackey from Merriam-Webster:

1 a : FOOTMAN 2, : SERVANT b : someone who does menial tasks or runs errands for another
2 : a servile follower : TOADY

What do you think? Does the description fit the actions of Gonzales? If he was ordered to do it, he would. He was just following orders.

When he stepped down as attorney general in September after widespread criticism of the firing of federal prosecutors and withering attacks on his credibility, Mr. Gonzales talked proudly in a farewell speech of how his department was “a place of inspiration” that had balanced the necessary flexibility to conduct the war on terrorism with the need to uphold the law.

Associates at the Justice Department said Mr. Gonzales seldom resisted pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and David S. Addington, Mr. Cheney’s counsel, to endorse policies that they saw as effective in safeguarding Americans, even though the practices brought the condemnation of other governments, human rights groups and Democrats in Congress. Critics say Mr. Gonzales turned his agency into an arm of the Bush White House, undermining the department’s independence

God defend us from the effects of such places of inspiration. And he calls what they've done being "flexible"? Stretching the conscience to the point where it breaks into useless fragments is what I'd call it.

From the secret sites in Afghanistan, Thailand and Eastern Europe where C.I.A. teams held Qaeda terrorists, questions for the lawyers at C.I.A. headquarters arrived daily. Nervous interrogators wanted to know: Are we breaking the laws against torture?

The Bush administration had entered uncharted legal territory beginning in 2002, holding prisoners outside the scrutiny of the International Red Cross and subjecting them to harrowing pressure tactics. They included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.

Never in history had the United States authorized such tactics. While President Bush and C.I.A. officials would later insist that the harsh measures produced crucial intelligence, many veteran interrogators, psychologists and other experts say that less coercive methods are equally or more effective.

The CIA received advice on the hastily conceived program for conducting interrogations from "Egypt and Saudi intelligence officials and copying Soviet intelligence methods...." - all teachers with sterling reputations for conducting interrogations in an ethical manner.

There was frequent questioning back and forth between the interrogators and the Justice Department as to whether this practice or that practice was legal, for the practioners were concerned about having to face consequences for operating outside of the law.

“We were getting asked about combinations — ‘Can we do this and this at the same time?’” recalled Paul C. Kelbaugh, a veteran intelligence lawyer who was deputy legal counsel at the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorist Center from 2001 to 2003.

Interrogators were worried that even approved techniques had such a painful, multiplying effect when combined that they might cross the legal line, Mr. Kelbaugh said. He recalled agency officers asking: “These approved techniques, say, withholding food, and 50-degree temperature — can they be combined?” Or “Do I have to do the less extreme before the more extreme?”

They're slicing and dicing the policies, questioning what sort of harm can be done by one human being to another human being before a line is crossed into breaking the law. Nothing about what is ethical, what is moral. Just thinking of this sort of conversation taking place is appalling to me, much less considering the consequences that follow for the prisoners and the people who actually execute the practices deemed lawful. Make no mistake: the people who participate in these activities pay a heavy price.

Mr. Kelbaugh said the questions were sometimes close calls that required consultation with the Justice Department. But in August 2002, the department provided a sweeping legal justification for even the harshest tactics.

That opinion, which would become infamous as “the torture memo” after it was leaked, was written largely by John Yoo, a young Berkeley law professor serving in the Office of Legal Counsel. His broad views of presidential power were shared by Mr. Addington, the vice president’s adviser. Their close alliance provoked John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, to refer privately to Mr. Yoo as Dr. Yes for his seeming eagerness to give the White House whatever legal justifications it desired, a Justice Department official recalled.

Mr. Yoo’s memorandum said no interrogation practices were illegal unless they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or “even death.” A second memo produced at the same time spelled out the approved practices and how often or how long they could be used.

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the head planner of the 9/11 attacks, was detained, severe interrogation methods were used against him, which may have the effect of making it impossible to obtain a conviction against him in a court of law.

Occasionally, by bureaucratic slip-up, a person of conscience was hired by the Bush maladministration, but like Mr. Comey and others, they did not stay long.

The doubts at the C.I.A. proved prophetic. In late 2003, after Mr. Yoo left the Justice Department, the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, began reviewing his work, which he found deeply flawed. Mr. Goldsmith infuriated White House officials, first by rejecting part of the National Security Agency’s surveillance program, prompting the threat of mass resignations by top Justice Department officials, including Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Comey, and a showdown at the attorney general’s hospital bedside.

Then, in June 2004, Mr. Goldsmith formally withdrew the August 2002 Yoo memorandum on interrogation, which he found overreaching and poorly reasoned. Mr. Goldsmith, who left the Justice Department soon afterward, first spoke at length about his dissenting views to The New York Times last month, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

I saw Goldsmith on Stephen Colbert's show, and I remember him saying that the Bush maladministration ran smack up against the law, and he called them on it, but, of course, he was soon gone.

If President Bush wanted to make sure the Justice Department did not rebel again, Mr. Gonzales was the ideal choice. As White House counsel, he had been a fierce protector of the president’s prerogatives. Deeply loyal to Mr. Bush for championing his career from their days in Texas, Mr. Gonzales would sometimes tell colleagues that he had just one regret about becoming attorney general: He did not see nearly as much of the president as he had in his previous post.

Don't you feel his pain? Doesn't it clutch at your heart that Gonzales was not in the awesome presence as often as before. Adoring, or what?

Words from James Comey in a speech at the NSA headquarters in 2004:

“It takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say ‘no’ when it matters most,” he said. “It takes moral character. It takes an understanding that in the long run, intelligence under law is the only sustainable intelligence in this country.”

Mr. Gonzales’s aides were happy to see Mr. Comey depart in the summer of 2005.

I'm quite sure they were happy to see Mr. Comey go. He seems to have been a fairly consistent thorn in their sides.

John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy’s top lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said he believed that the existence of legal opinions justifying abusive treatment is pernicious, potentially blurring the rules for Americans handling prisoners.

“I know from the military that if you tell someone they can do a little of this for the country’s good, some people will do a lot of it for the country’s better,” Mr. Hutson said. Like other military lawyers, he also fears that official American acceptance of such treatment could endanger Americans in the future.

“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?” he asked.

From Robert Baer in Time:

The CIA is still torturing, according to the New York Times, and the Administration is still denying it. "The government does not torture," Bush said Friday.

So what do you call simulated drownings - waterboarding - and slapping and freezing, techniques that were approved in a 2005 secret Department of Justice legal opinion? If the Eighth Amendment prohibits American police from waterboarding suspects, common sense tells me it's illegal.

But legal or not, the important thing to remember is that torture doesn't work. When I was in the CIA I never came across a country that systematically tortures its citizens and at the same time produces useful intelligence. The objective of torture, invariably, is intimidation.

Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of "See No Evil" and, most recently, the novel "Blow the House Down".

For me, the ethical argument carries much greater weight than the practical argument that torture does not produce useful intelligence. The practical argument against torture is simply another example of the stupidity and incompetence that the Bush maladministration demonstrates on a daily basis.

If a country considers itself to be civilized, then torture is not to be tolerated. How did we get into the position in which we argue whether or not torture is the way to go? It's partially because in the upside-down world of Bush and his minions, they declare that torture is not torture, and some are taken in by this deception. And it's the secrecy. We do not know what's going on behind the curtain of secrecy, until long after the dirty deeds are done.

I don't know why I do long posts like this with the quotes and the links. The material is there in the NY Times and the other links, available for reading by anyone who takes the trouble at sites that receive far more visitors than I, but, somehow, I come around to thinking that I need to do them.

Only In Louisiana

For your last laugh of the evening or your first laugh in the morning, visit Through the Dust, Ormonde Plater's blog.

Missing

Missing is what I've been for three out of four of the Sunday services at my church in the last month. Here's where I've been when I've not been in my church:

Grandparents Day Mass at Jesuit High School in New Orleans.

Service at Christ Church Cathedral in New Orleans with Bishop Katharine presiding and preaching.

Mass for sixth grade students - one of whom is my granddaughter - at a local Roman Catholic Church. (What do you do when a beautiful little girl gives you a handmade invitation? You go, of course.)

I hope that next week, I can attend my church. I miss it when I'm away.

Week after next, I will be in New York city for a gathering of friends of MadPriest. Unfortunately, our leader will not be with us. He lives too far away. (A little birdie told me he's afraid to fly, too, but that is only rumor and, of course, I could be wrong.) We'll try to soldier on and enjoy ourselves anyway, although it will not be the same with him missing.

I'm not sure where I'll be going to church on Sunday in NYC. I do know that we will be attending Evensong at General Theological Seminary on Monday evening.

Feast Day Of William Tyndale

Image from Hertford College, Oxford.

From James Keifer at the Lectionary:

Tyndale was born Slymbridge and educated at Oxford and Cambridge. Against the wishes of Henry VIII, he wanted to translate the Bible into English, the language of the people.

As Keifer says:

It is reported that, in the course of a dispute with a promminent clergyman who disparaged this proposal, he said, "If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost."

That's telling him.

Because of Henry VII opposition, Tyndale left England, went to Germany and spent years in exile, poor, moving from place to place, and working on his translation.

He completed his translation of the New Testament in 1525, and it was printed at Worms and smuggled into England. Of 18,000 copies, only two survive. In 1534, he produced a revised version, and began work on the Old Testament. In the next two years he completed and published the Pentateuch and Jonah, and translated the books from Joshua through Second Chronicles, but then he was captured (betrayed by one he had befriended), tried for heresy, and put to death. He was burned at the stake, but, as was often done, the officer strangled him before lighting the fire. His last words were, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes."

Miles Coverdale continued Tyndale's work by translating those portions of the Bible (including the Apocrypha) which Tyndale had not lived to translate himself, and publishing the complete work. In 1537, the "Matthew Bible" (essentially the Tyndale-Coverdale Bible under another man's name to spare the government embarrassment) was published in England with the Royal Permission. Six copies were set up for public reading in Old St Paul's Church, and throughout the daylight hours the church was crowded with those who had come to hear it. One man would stand at the lectern and read until his voice gave out, and then he would stand down and another would take his place. All English translations of the Bible from that time to the present century are essentially revisions of the Tyndale-Coverdale work.

I love the story of the public readings in Old St. Paul's Church, with crowds coming to listen. Even those who could not read were given access to the words of the Bible.

READINGS:

Psalm 1 or 15
James 1:21-25
John 12:44-50

PRAYER

Almighty God, who planted in the heart of your servant William Tyndale a consuming passion to bring the Scriptures to the people in their native tongue, and endowed him with the gift of powerful and graceful expression and with strength to persevere against all obstacles: Reveal to us your saving Word, as we read and study the Scriptures, and hear them calling us to repentance and life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

UPDATE: Thanks to LapinBizarre in the comments, here is a link to the text of the Tyndale New Testament:

One Of Our Own

From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

St. Bernard Parish Councilman Joey DiFatta, who on Thursday withdrew from the 1st Senate District campaign, has been stopped twice since 1996 for suspicion of engaging in lewd behavior in public restrooms in Jefferson Parish, records obtained by The Times-Picayune show.

DiFatta, 53, acknowledged that reports he had been stopped are true, but he denied any wrongdoing in both cases. He said he was not prosecuted in either case and has no arrest record.

"If I had done something wrong, I would have been arrested," DiFatta said Thursday afternoon. "I was not. I will deny that I was involved in any activity of that nature."
....

Kenner police issued a misdemeanor summons to DiFatta in September 1996 in connection with a peeping Tom incident in a men's bathroom at the former Mervyn's department store at The Esplanade mall, according to a Kenner Police Department incident report obtained by The Times-Picayune.

The report states that DiFatta watched a man use the bathroom while peering through a hole in a bathroom stall. The man held DiFatta until police arrived, at which time he was issued the misdemeanor summons and ordered to appear in court.

DiFatta said the man eventually withdrew his complaint, and the case was dismissed. A spokeswoman for the Kenner Police Department said the record was expunged.

Tapping foot in stall

In the second incident, Jefferson Parish deputies working an undercover detail in a men's bathroom at Dillard's at Lakeside Shopping Center in March 2000 stopped DiFatta after he indicated a desire to engage in sex with an undercover deputy in an adjoining bathroom stall, according to an interoffice memorandum written by Sgt. Keith Conley, one of the deputies involved in the investigation.

DiFatta said that he withdrew for health reasons, because he may have had a slight heart attack. I wish him good health in the future, but being caught in incidents like these, when you're running for political office, causes great stress, I'm sure, and is not good for the health.

If you want to get elected to a public office in Louisiana, and you're gay or lesbian, you must be in the closet, or you don't have a chance. I find the incidents like the one described above so very sad. This is not the way things should be, and lesbian and gay folks should be able to live their lives openly and honestly, along with everyone else, without getting grief for who they are.

At the same time, you must make choices. If you're gay, and you remain closeted, and you're running for public office, isn't it wise not to trumpet "conservative values" - whatever the words have come to mean in the political codes of the day?

On his website DiFatta, a Republican, promises to, "Defend our conservative values from attack by extreme liberal groups".

I presume that conservative values would not include soliciting gay sex in a public restroom. You see, it's the hypocrisy.

Reading about the woes of Sen. Larry Craig and Councilman DiFatta has given a whole new meaning to the phrase "tapping feet". All this time I've been thinking that it was about what Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly did in the old movies.

Check out the cover of this week's issue of The New Yorker.

Adventus Is Back!

Rmj at Adventus is back to blogging, and with a bang! He's posted the video of Chris Matthews making a fool of himself on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, along with commentary. Matthews is there to sell his book titled Life's a Campaign. The title alone speaks volumes about Matthews. As you will see in the video, Stewart gives Matthews a little push forward along the path of foolishness.

Chris says it's the worst interview of his life. He probably got that right.

Then, Rmj has a looong post on hospitality, which will take some time to read, but it is worth every minute of that time. Here's a sample:

“The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it,” Jesus says in the Gospel of John; but he doesn’t say the spirit rests someplace. It may rest upon you for a moment, it may inspire you to speak by tongues of flame, as on the day of Pentecost, but it never rests with you, it never stays in you and finds a home and comfort there. The Holy Spirit is always active, always moving, always effecting us when it comes by. The Holy Spirit is activity, is practice, is known by its movement; it is not a comforting idea that gives us peace and tranquility. “The peace of God, it is no peace, but strife sown in the sod,” the old hymn goes. That could be describing hospitality, since hospitality is all about vulnerability, about opening oneself to the stranger, whether the stranger is guest or the stranger is host. And the fact is, the scriptures are rife with stories of hospitality.

Rmj, I'm so glad you're back in the campaign of life in the blogosphere.

I'm Just Wild About Harry

Please go read Harry's account of his dinner with Bishop Katharine and her husband, Richard, at Fr. Jake's.

What eloquent and gifted writing!

Harry said this about being with her:

Katharine was easy to be with. She’s just my sister. She’s just another person at the table.

He's exactly right. I feel the same about her after my brief - but not nearly so weighty - encounter with her.

And Harry is going to build a school in Tanganyika with a little help from his friends!