Movietime!

I'm hibernating with movies. I just finished watching "DreamGirls". I know I'm late to that party, but I'm glad I didn't miss it altogether. Wow! Jennifer Hudson was spectacular in both her singing and acting! Beyoncé was very good as was Eddie Murphy's over-the-top performance. Oh, and I liked the music too. How would I characterize the music? Broadway soul? Broadway Motown? I probably have that wrong.

The movie gives a glimpse of the dark side of the music business, the pay-offs to the DJs to play the records, betrayals, etc. We see how men tend to do women wrong, but the women are strong, and they don't stay down. They come back stronger than ever. Am I right about that? Yes!

But I gotta tell you the truth. In the second half, the movie was a little slow in spots, and I took to filing my fingernails, but all in all, it's definitely worth watching.

Earlier in the week, I watched "Becoming Jane", supposedly based on the life of Jane Austen. I'd say, "Don't bother," for that one. I don't have in depth knowledge about a whole hell of things in this world, but Jane Austen, her writing and her life, I know. The movie takes great liberties with her biography - silly liberties. They don't even make the story better.

Grandpère is out of town, so I can do what I want. Yay! I'm heading over to rent a couple more movies. I'm in the mood for movies!

And that's all I got, peeps. I'm laaazy today. I don't even have a thought for the day. It's my day off from thinking.

Oh. I did go to church. Just so you know.

Jesus And Mo - Lake Of Fire

Click on the cartoon to enlarge.

Thanks to Ann.

Shared with permission.

Bishop Duncan's Speech At GAFCON

Since I waded through all 14 pages of Bishop Robert Duncan's opening address to GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference), which is - what? - the anti-Lambeth, the alternative Lambeth, I decided to write a bit about it and probably bore you to death. One goal of the folks gathered at GAFCON seems to be to take Anglicanism back to a nebulous gilded age when the one true church of Jesus Christ manifested itself plainly for all to see. Bishop Duncan mentions the church of the early centuries of Christianity but then suggests that the shared prayer of Anglicanism today should be a version of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

The groups represented at GAFCON are: Network, Anglican Mission in America, Reformed Episcopal Church, American Anglican Council, Forward in Faith North America, Anglican Province in America, congregations in Kenya, Uganda, and the Southern Cone, Anglican Network in Canada, and Federation of Anglican Churches in America. One major "challenge" facing the group as they come together is that they do not agree on the ordination of women to the priesthood. Other "challenges" may arise as they continue to seek to come together in a body.

One question from Bishop Duncan startled me. He asked, "What will it take to restore the Holy Scripture as "ultimate rule and standard" among us?" Ultimate rule and standard? That seems a tad, just a tad idolatrous to me. Of course, I could be wrong, since I am neither a learned theologian nor a learned Scripture scholar. "Anglicans are 'under the Word'," says Bp. Duncan. The Word made flesh or the word in a book?

He speaks of the proper role of the Anglican Communion as a bridge between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches on one side and the Protestant churches on the other. One way that he sees the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada going astray is that they are rather trying to be a bridge between the church and the world. I wonder if the doctrine of the Incarnation could have implications here.

Bishop Duncan says, "But the inexorable shift of power from Britain and the West to the Global South cannot be stopped, and some conciliar instrument reflective of the shift is bound to emerge as the Reformation Settlement gives way to a Global (post-colonial) Settlement." That statement led me, along with others, to ponder why a white man is moderator of the gathering.

I think that's enough.

GAFCON The Musical!

Go, go, go to Padre Mickey's to see his latest masterpiece. I am not kidding. Go!

Feet Of Clay

From a funny-but-serious short memoir by George Saunders in the New Yorker:

On those Wednesday afternoons when I was Reader for all-school Mass, I would leave class early, confident yet stressed, like a little businessman, and hustle down to the sacristy, where I’d read the Epistle passage aloud so that Father X could check my pronunciation. He’d mark the reading with one of several silk ribbons bound into the pages, and I’d take the book out to the lectern and stand there a minute, thinking, Soon I’ll be up here, and the light will be on me, and the church will be full of my friends.

Normally on Wednesdays I found Father X working at something in the sacristy. This Wednesday, I came up the aisle quietly, so quietly that I discovered Father X and a nun I’ll call Sister Y in the middle of—well, I couldn’t figure out what they were doing. It appeared to be some particularly athletic form of kissing, involving tongues and a lot of snakelike extraneous limb and torso motion, as if this new kind of kissing were filling them with painful electricity.

Later, Saunders went back to the church to do his practice reading, careful to make a good deal of noise as he walked down the aisle.

Out came Sister Y, looking beautiful in the way someone will when she has just, against all sense, done exactly what she most wanted to.

Saunders awakened to the truth that nuns and priests are human beings, like the rest of us, with feet of clay, at an earlier age than I did. I was well into my late teen years before I was disabused of the notion that Roman Catholic priests and nuns were far above us lowly lay folks on the holiness scale. At my Jesuit university, one of my philosophy professors was an elderly priest who was an outspoken racist. He did not mince words in his racist remarks. However, he was very much the exception, in fact, the only exception amongst the Jesuits at that time, 50-plus years ago, for it was at the university that I began to unlearn the racist attitudes I had lived with my whole life. He had been a brilliant philosophy teacher in his prime, or so I heard, but when he taught me, he was way, way, way past his prime.

After graduating from the university, I taught second grade at a Roman Catholic school, one of a small group of lay teachers amongst the nuns who outnumbered us. After my first year there, the nuns treated me more like one of them and began to share news and harmless gossip about life in the convent. I was thunderstruck one day when one of the sisters made a not-so-harmless snide remark about one of the other nuns. The comment implied that the nuns did not always get along with one another! I have suggested before that I stayed an innocent naïf far longer than most young people - you could even say a case of arrested development, but there it is. As time went on, others shared with me the normal tensions involved in living in community. Of course, that's quite usual and natural, and I should have known better than to think all was sweetness and light in the relationships of the nuns one to the other in convent life, but I did not.

Lest you think that goodness went along with my innocence, I'll disabuse you of that notion, because my small circle of friends came close to what would be called "mean girls" today, for we used cutting irony and ridicule when we talked of certain of our peers. The good news is that it was mostly talk for we did not treat them rudely, plus we were not the top group in popularity, so we had little influence beyond our small circle.

UPDATE: From Fran in the comments:

By Thomas Merton

To love another as a person we must begin by granting him his own autonomy and identity as a person. We have to love him for what he is in himself, and not for what he is to us. We have to love him for his own good, not for the good we get out of him. And this is impossible unless we are capable of a love which ‘transforms’ us, so to speak, into the other person, making us able to see things as he sees them, love what he loves, experience the deeper realities of his own life as if they were our own. Without sacrifice, such a transformation is utterly impossible. But unless we are capable of this kind of transformation ‘into the other’ while remaining ourselves, we are not yet capable of a fully human existence.

Pink Snow

The crepe myrtle tree is on the side of our house. I don't know the name of the variety, but we call it pink snow because that's what it looks like with the tree and the ground covered with pink flowers. The flowers in the lower right hand corner are pentas for the hummingbirds and butterflies.

Just thought you'd like to see something pretty for a change.

Please Guys, Give Them Back

From the Times-Picayune:

BATON ROUGE -- Gov. Bobby Jindal urged lawmakers Wednesday to reverse enactment of a raise that would double their pay by taking immediate legislative action before the current session ends in five days.

But with Jindal repeating a pledge not to veto the measure, lawmakers said they considered the issue closed.

"I don't know why he is trying to antagonize the Legislature," House Speaker Jim Tucker, R-Algiers, said of Jindal's request.

OK, someone please explain this to me. Our guv is asking the legislators to reverse the bill that they passed to more than double their salaries. The guv has something called veto power, which he is not willing to exercise. He has antagonized the legislators by his request for reversal of the bill, but he will not veto the bill and please many, many, many other citizens of Louisiana. He won't sign the bill, but if he does not veto by July 8, the bill will become law.

He now seems to be in the position of pleasing no one. Perhaps, he thinks that as long as the lawmakers get their money, they will forget that he antagonized them. Perhaps he thinks the people of Louisiana will forget that he broke his campaign promise to "prohibit the legislature from giving themselves raises that take effect before the subsequent election." Jindal was a Rhodes Scholar, as was our Sen. David Vitter, who admitted to patronizing prostitutes. Having been a Rhodes Scholar does not seem to be a sure-fire predictor that one will serve well in a public office.

I am proud to say that my representative in the legislature, Dee Richard, voted against the pay raise and that he will refuse to take the raise, along with others in the legislature. Good for them. I can't say the same for my senator, Joel Chaisson.

Gen. Antonio Taguba - An Honest Man

From McKlatchy:

WASHINGTON — The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing "war crimes" and called for those responsible to be held to account.

The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who's now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Are you listening, Democrats? I want trials for the members of the Bush maladministration. I want them to have the trials that they've refused to give the detainees. I want them to be held accountable.

The group Physicians for Human Rights, which compiled the new report, described it as the most in-depth medical and psychological examination of former detainees to date.

Doctors and mental health experts examined 11 detainees held for long periods in the prison system that President Bush established after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. All of them eventually were released without charges.

The doctors and experts determined that the men had been subject to cruelties that ranged from isolation, sleep deprivation and hooding to electric shocks, beating and, in one case, being forced to drink urine.

Bush has said repeatedly that the United States doesn't condone torture.

(My emphasis in the quotes)

This is sickening. Evidence that the decision to use "enhanced interrogation" methods was authorized at the highest levels grows ever stronger with new investigations and revelations. Those who were released must have been innocent, right? The maladministration would not let terrorists go free, would they? Is this the kind of country we want to be?

"The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Yes, Gen. Taguba, and thank you.

The Bishop of London Responds

From The Lead at the Episcopal Cafè.

Below is the text of the letter from Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, to Dudley Martin in response to his blessing of the civil partnership of Peter Cowell and David Lord:

18th June 2008

The Reverend Dr Martin Dudley,
St Bartholomew the Great Parish Office,
6 Kinghorn Street,
London,
EC1A 7HW.

Dear Martin,

You have sought to justify your actions to the BBC and in various newspapers but have failed more than two weeks after the service to communicate with me.

I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your Bishop.

You describe the result as “familiar words reordered and reconfigured carrying new meanings.” I note that the order of service, which I have now received, includes the phrase “With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship”.

At first sight this seems to break the House of Bishops Guidelines which as I explained in my letter of December 6th 2005 apply the traditional teaching of the Church of England to the new circumstances created by the enactment of Civil Partnerships.

The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.

The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”

St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.

Yours faithfully.

The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA

Thought For The Day - From Giles Fraser

In the beginning of his talk on BBC Radio 4, Fraser lists the purposes of marriage in the liturgy from the 17th century Book of Common Prayer.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

The second and third purposes seem to present no barrier to same-sex marriages. Fraser follows with commentary on the first purpose of marriage - procreation.

The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rightly recognised that celibacy is a vocation to which many gay people are simply not called. Which is why, it strikes me, the church ought to be offering gay people a basis for monogamous relationships that are permanent, faithful and stable. So that leaves the whole question of procreation. And clearly a gay couple cannot make babies biologically. But then neither can those who marry much later in life. Many couples, for a whole range of reasons, find they cannot conceive children - or, simply, don't choose to. Is marriage to be denied them? Of course not. For these reasons - and also after contraception became fully accepted in the Church of England - the modern marriage service shifted the emphasis away from procreation. The weight in today's wedding liturgy is on the creation of loving and stable relationships. For me, this is something in which gay Christians have a perfect right to participate. I know many people of good will are bound to disagree with me on this. But gay marriage isn't about culture wars or church politics; it's fundamentally about one person loving another. The fact that two gay men have proclaimed this love in the presence of God, before friends and family and in the context of prayerful reflection is something I believe the church should welcome. It's not as if there's so much real love in the world that we can afford to be dismissive of what little we do find. Which is why my view is we ought to celebrate real love however and wherever we find it.

In the event that you wonder about my extensive posting on actions and opinions in the Church of England, it is because I have been stung by Archbishop Rowan Williams critical statements about the Episcopal Church going its own way in consecrating Gene Robinson, a partnered gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire. He has singled out the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada for particular criticism. Now that he must deal with similar departures from traditional practices in his home church, I hope that he may cast a more kindly gaze upon the actions of his brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada.

Episcopalians in New Hampshire are left without representation at the Lambeth gathering of the bishops of the Anglican Communion this summer by the non-invitation of Bishop Robinson. Diocesan leaders in New Hampshire sent a letter to Archbishop Williams in protest that Bishop Robinson is barred from the conference. I'd like to have signed the letter in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in New Hampshire, because, as a member of the Episcopal Church, I take his non-invitation somewhat personally.

From BBC Radio 4 via The Lead at the Episcopal Café.