Monday, September 14, 2009
Please Pray For Archbishop Desmond Tutu
From IOL News, South Africa:
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu is recuperating at home after recently suffering from a slipped disc, his office said on Thursday.
"Tutu is recuperating at home after suffering from a prolapsed in[ter]vertebral disc over a week ago," a statement read.
Tutu was taken to hospital and advised by doctors to lie flat on his back for a week or two.
"He is in good spirits, albeit in some discomfort, and will be back on his feet soon."
Last month Tutu was awarded the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama at the White House. Tutu dedicated his award to all South Africans who fought the country's struggle for freedom and justice.
H/T to Peter Carey at The Lead.
Please Pray For Myron's Surgery To Go Well
Morning Everyone,
Today at 12N Myron will undergo a surgery to place plates along the most severely broken ribs on his left side. This will help to stabilize those ribs and allow them to expand and contract properly. This will allow Myron to breathe easier.
Blessing to you all and Thank you for your support of our family.
Sue
UPDATE: All,
Myron came thru the surgery well. Maryann reported that only the ribs on the left side were done and I think she said that 3 ribs had the supports put in. He tolerated the surgery well, and will go to a surgical step down room.
One more procedure down..
Sue
Thanks be to God and the medical staff and for Myron's strong constitution and determination.
Today at 12N Myron will undergo a surgery to place plates along the most severely broken ribs on his left side. This will help to stabilize those ribs and allow them to expand and contract properly. This will allow Myron to breathe easier.
Blessing to you all and Thank you for your support of our family.
Sue
UPDATE: All,
Myron came thru the surgery well. Maryann reported that only the ribs on the left side were done and I think she said that 3 ribs had the supports put in. He tolerated the surgery well, and will go to a surgical step down room.
One more procedure down..
Sue
Thanks be to God and the medical staff and for Myron's strong constitution and determination.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
With Bishop Smith In New Orleans
Since the weather forecast and the weather here in Thibodaux was less than encouraging until the latter part of the morning, I started and arrived late at the School for Ministry session at Christ Church Cathedral, led by Bishop Michael Smith of the Episcopal Diocese of North Dakota. Bishop Smith is one of the candidates for the office of bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana. For background on how Bishop Smith and I "met" online and then in person, here's my original post on the bishop's candidacy.
Bishop Smith was kind and patient with me about being late and about talking far too much. Oh dear! Pity the poor bishop and the others in the class having to listen to me rattle on at length. Since I missed the session last night and was two hours late this morning, I will surely not do justice in what I write of the sessions.
The Ridley-Cambridge Draft Covenant was the main topic of discussion during my time there, with diversions into other subjects, such as sections of Archbishop Rowan Williams' 2006 reflection and his recent reflection on General Convention 2009. Bishop Smith advocates that the Episcopal Church sign the Covenant, but only with serious intent to adhere to the terms of the Covenant. Of course, I agree that a vote by TEC in favor of the Covenant implies a willingness to live up to its terms. The bishop foresees the possibility that the House of Bishops may vote in favor of the Covenant, and the House of Deputies may vote it down.
I made it clear that I oppose the Covenant, that I see no need for it, that, as I've said before, I think it's a cockamamie idea. From its inception, I believe that the purpose of the Covenant was to discipline and punish those who stray from "the mind of the Communion". However, I don't believe that there is a mind of the Communion, but that the Communion is of many minds, that it always was, and that we can stay in Communion despite a diversity of opinions and practices, so long as we adhere to the essentials of the faith that held us together for so many years, namely the Scriptures, the Creeds, common worship, and the bonds of affection.
Since certain members feel that the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson created a crisis and tore the fabric of the Communion, Bishop Smith believes that the Covenant will be a means to help ease the crisis, repair the tear, and bring the members of the Communion together again.
(If I unintentionally misrepresent Bishop Smith's words or views in this post, I hope that he will weigh in and correct me.)
I said that Bishop Gene is not the first non-celibate gay bishop and added that the Church of England had non-celibate gay bishops and priests. "Can you name names?"
"No, I cannot." I'm not in the business of outing people, even if I could name names. I said, "It's don't ask, don't tell in the English Church, and that seems hypocritical to me." And then, the ABC locked Bishop Gene out of Lambeth, which I thought was ungracious and rude, and still 200 bishops stayed away. Who more than Bishop Gene should have been present to speak and listen in the indaba groups at Lambeth?
I see little hope that very many of those who left will return because of the Covenant, nor do I think that the Covenant will repair the tear in the fabric of the Communion. (Why does Humpty-Dumpty come to mind?) How would the controversy of Bishop Gene Robinson be settled? By his being stripped of his office? By a promise not to consecrate another partnered gay or lesbian bishop until the entire membership agrees? It seems to me that certain members will be satisfied with nothing less than the removal of the Episcopal Church from the Communion. As I see it, those who left tore the fabric of the Communion.
In my opinion, the seven bishops who met with the Archbishop of Canterbury showed disrespect to Bishop Katharine by circumventing her and going over her head to talk to the ABC, despite the fact that, as a courtesy, they informed her of the meeting. Was he seen as a "higher authority", in spite of the fact that he has no authority in the governance of TEC? When I said that to Bishop Smith, he said, "But he has moral authority". I didn't answer at the time, but later I realized that a person can only have moral authority by earning it. I respect the office of the primus inter pares, but by his words and by his actions, the ABC has been a disappointment to me. I asked the bishop what was the purpose of their visit, and he said that it was to consult with the Archbishop.
When I told Bishop Smith that I realize that, unlike many, I have a certain freedom to speak out that others may not have, because I don't have an official position in the church, other than a not-so-humble pew warmer, he replied, "But you are a Christian, and you must keep in mind your responsibility to build up the Body of Christ." That is true, and I try to do that, but that does not mean that I can't express my opinion about words and actions of fallible humans in the church, especially those in positions of authority.
That the ABC seems to keep one eye on Rome is puzzling to me, but Bishop Smith said that it was necessary for him to have one eye on Rome if we want to be any sort of church Catholic, and the Covenant is the way to achieve that. In discussions with Rome, Rome wants to know who speaks for the Anglican Communion. My suggestion would be to say that Anglicanism speaks not with one voice, but with many voices. Besides, the voices in the pope's own church are quite diverse, much more so than he would ever admit. If I wanted to be like Rome, I'd still be in the Roman church.
I've said already that I am troubled by parts of the statement from the seven bishops who visited the ABC, and Bishop Smith said that I could ask any him any questions at all about the statement or anything else that I didn't understand or that troubled me. Again, Bishop Smith is quite personable, and he could not have been more gracious and pleasant to me. I thank him for his patience with me and for answering my question. I may have questions for him in the future.
I thank Harriet Murrell of Christ Church Cathedral for her kindness and help in making last minute arrangements for me to attend the sessions.
Bishop Smith was kind and patient with me about being late and about talking far too much. Oh dear! Pity the poor bishop and the others in the class having to listen to me rattle on at length. Since I missed the session last night and was two hours late this morning, I will surely not do justice in what I write of the sessions.
The Ridley-Cambridge Draft Covenant was the main topic of discussion during my time there, with diversions into other subjects, such as sections of Archbishop Rowan Williams' 2006 reflection and his recent reflection on General Convention 2009. Bishop Smith advocates that the Episcopal Church sign the Covenant, but only with serious intent to adhere to the terms of the Covenant. Of course, I agree that a vote by TEC in favor of the Covenant implies a willingness to live up to its terms. The bishop foresees the possibility that the House of Bishops may vote in favor of the Covenant, and the House of Deputies may vote it down.
I made it clear that I oppose the Covenant, that I see no need for it, that, as I've said before, I think it's a cockamamie idea. From its inception, I believe that the purpose of the Covenant was to discipline and punish those who stray from "the mind of the Communion". However, I don't believe that there is a mind of the Communion, but that the Communion is of many minds, that it always was, and that we can stay in Communion despite a diversity of opinions and practices, so long as we adhere to the essentials of the faith that held us together for so many years, namely the Scriptures, the Creeds, common worship, and the bonds of affection.
Since certain members feel that the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson created a crisis and tore the fabric of the Communion, Bishop Smith believes that the Covenant will be a means to help ease the crisis, repair the tear, and bring the members of the Communion together again.
(If I unintentionally misrepresent Bishop Smith's words or views in this post, I hope that he will weigh in and correct me.)
I said that Bishop Gene is not the first non-celibate gay bishop and added that the Church of England had non-celibate gay bishops and priests. "Can you name names?"
"No, I cannot." I'm not in the business of outing people, even if I could name names. I said, "It's don't ask, don't tell in the English Church, and that seems hypocritical to me." And then, the ABC locked Bishop Gene out of Lambeth, which I thought was ungracious and rude, and still 200 bishops stayed away. Who more than Bishop Gene should have been present to speak and listen in the indaba groups at Lambeth?
I see little hope that very many of those who left will return because of the Covenant, nor do I think that the Covenant will repair the tear in the fabric of the Communion. (Why does Humpty-Dumpty come to mind?) How would the controversy of Bishop Gene Robinson be settled? By his being stripped of his office? By a promise not to consecrate another partnered gay or lesbian bishop until the entire membership agrees? It seems to me that certain members will be satisfied with nothing less than the removal of the Episcopal Church from the Communion. As I see it, those who left tore the fabric of the Communion.
In my opinion, the seven bishops who met with the Archbishop of Canterbury showed disrespect to Bishop Katharine by circumventing her and going over her head to talk to the ABC, despite the fact that, as a courtesy, they informed her of the meeting. Was he seen as a "higher authority", in spite of the fact that he has no authority in the governance of TEC? When I said that to Bishop Smith, he said, "But he has moral authority". I didn't answer at the time, but later I realized that a person can only have moral authority by earning it. I respect the office of the primus inter pares, but by his words and by his actions, the ABC has been a disappointment to me. I asked the bishop what was the purpose of their visit, and he said that it was to consult with the Archbishop.
When I told Bishop Smith that I realize that, unlike many, I have a certain freedom to speak out that others may not have, because I don't have an official position in the church, other than a not-so-humble pew warmer, he replied, "But you are a Christian, and you must keep in mind your responsibility to build up the Body of Christ." That is true, and I try to do that, but that does not mean that I can't express my opinion about words and actions of fallible humans in the church, especially those in positions of authority.
That the ABC seems to keep one eye on Rome is puzzling to me, but Bishop Smith said that it was necessary for him to have one eye on Rome if we want to be any sort of church Catholic, and the Covenant is the way to achieve that. In discussions with Rome, Rome wants to know who speaks for the Anglican Communion. My suggestion would be to say that Anglicanism speaks not with one voice, but with many voices. Besides, the voices in the pope's own church are quite diverse, much more so than he would ever admit. If I wanted to be like Rome, I'd still be in the Roman church.
I've said already that I am troubled by parts of the statement from the seven bishops who visited the ABC, and Bishop Smith said that I could ask any him any questions at all about the statement or anything else that I didn't understand or that troubled me. Again, Bishop Smith is quite personable, and he could not have been more gracious and pleasant to me. I thank him for his patience with me and for answering my question. I may have questions for him in the future.
I thank Harriet Murrell of Christ Church Cathedral for her kindness and help in making last minute arrangements for me to attend the sessions.
Happy Anniversary To Us!
Today, Grandpère and I celebrate 48 years of marriage. The picture above shows the flowers from GP in honor of the occasion. Not shown is the bottle of wine that came with them.
For months I've been saying that today will be our 49th anniversary, and then I did the math and discovered that I was wrong. We married in 1961 in Charleston, South Carolina at the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St. John in the bishop's small private chapel, which was a perfect spot for our wedding, because only a very few were in attendance. Fr. Francis Friend blessed our marriage, and he was a true friend, because we could not find another Roman Catholic priest to do the honors, because we were not members of their parishes. We wanted to do the right thing, but we could not find a priest to make an honest woman out of me until I discovered Fr. Friend after a number of priests refused.
Fr. Friend worked at the Cathedral office of the Marriage Tribunal, which generally handled annulment cases, but he blessed our coming together. Present were my sister, Gayle, my brother-in-law, Frank, my niece Donna, Frank's sister, Chally and her two children, Cindy and Don. After the ceremony, my sister had a surprise champagne and cake party for our small group. It was lovely, and I would not change a thing.
GP went to church with me today, (a rare occurrence!) and the rector and congregation prayed a blessing for us. Afterward, we went out to eat, just the two of us.
Thanks be to God for 48 years together!
The beautiful vase in the picture was a gift from my daughter some years ago. The baskets in the center and on the left are pine needle baskets woven by African-American craftswomen in south Louisiana, and the small basket on the right, made of palmetto strips, is from Panama (Padre Mickey, take note!). Caminante led me to the booth in the exhibit hall at GC09, where I purchased the basket. She bought two gorgeous priest's stoles from Panama. She was to model them and post pictures, but I don't believe she ever did, unless I missed the posts.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Ever Notice...
...the older we get, the more we're like computers?
We start out with lots of memory and drive, then we become outdated and
eventually have to get our parts replaced.
From Paul (A.).
We start out with lots of memory and drive, then we become outdated and
eventually have to get our parts replaced.
From Paul (A.).
"The Imagined Community Of The Anglican Communion"
If you have not read it already, Frank M. Turner's essay at the Daily Episcopalian is quite good. Today, I gave a copy of it to Bishop Michael Smith of the Episcopal Diocese of North Dakota, when I attended part of his session for the School for Ministry at Christ Church Cathedral in New Orleans.
At its most banal, the Communion exists to justify bishops traveling about the world on funds contributed by the baptized. At its worst, it has come to represent an imagined community several of whose Episcopal spokespeople now seek to persecute and degrade or relegate into a second track churches who have opened themselves, their process of ordination, and their episcopate to gay and lesbian people. In this respect, it this ecclesiastical imagined community replicates in its drive to exclusion the persecution that ethnic minorities have experienced at the hands of dominant nationalist groups from the early nineteenth century to the present day.
In his recent garrulous meditation on the General Convention of the Episcopal Church the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote of the Anglican Communion being important to “our identity.” He did not identify the antecedent to “our.” Certainly throughout the world the people who most identify with the so-called Anglican Communion are bishops. If one looks to the website of the Anglican Communion (the Internet being the equivalent of the print media within which early nineteenth-century nationalism emerged), what are described as the “Instruments of Communion” overwhelming relate to the various episcopates. The laity play little role and would seem to be intended to play little role. In this respect, the modern so-called Anglican Communion is an invention and ecclesiastical innovation of the clerical imagination. Indeed the term “Anglican” itself achieved modest common currency only in the l830s with the phrase “Anglican Communion” being first used in l847 by the American missionary bishop, Horatio Southgate.
The essay is an excellent account of the history of the voyage of the Anglican Communion which counters the notion that it was the barque which always sailed smoothly.
With respect to the statement about the laity, Turner seems to be right, as witness this quote from a reflection by the Archbishop of Canterbury from 2006:
There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn't correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition - a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other.
What about the ministry of the laity? Not even a mention.
At its most banal, the Communion exists to justify bishops traveling about the world on funds contributed by the baptized. At its worst, it has come to represent an imagined community several of whose Episcopal spokespeople now seek to persecute and degrade or relegate into a second track churches who have opened themselves, their process of ordination, and their episcopate to gay and lesbian people. In this respect, it this ecclesiastical imagined community replicates in its drive to exclusion the persecution that ethnic minorities have experienced at the hands of dominant nationalist groups from the early nineteenth century to the present day.
In his recent garrulous meditation on the General Convention of the Episcopal Church the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote of the Anglican Communion being important to “our identity.” He did not identify the antecedent to “our.” Certainly throughout the world the people who most identify with the so-called Anglican Communion are bishops. If one looks to the website of the Anglican Communion (the Internet being the equivalent of the print media within which early nineteenth-century nationalism emerged), what are described as the “Instruments of Communion” overwhelming relate to the various episcopates. The laity play little role and would seem to be intended to play little role. In this respect, the modern so-called Anglican Communion is an invention and ecclesiastical innovation of the clerical imagination. Indeed the term “Anglican” itself achieved modest common currency only in the l830s with the phrase “Anglican Communion” being first used in l847 by the American missionary bishop, Horatio Southgate.
The essay is an excellent account of the history of the voyage of the Anglican Communion which counters the notion that it was the barque which always sailed smoothly.
With respect to the statement about the laity, Turner seems to be right, as witness this quote from a reflection by the Archbishop of Canterbury from 2006:
There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn't correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition - a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other.
What about the ministry of the laity? Not even a mention.
Worn out!
After rising before dawn, I had a looong day, which I'll tell you about tomorrow. With what's left of the day, I'm watching my new DVD of "Brideshead Revisited" once again. It is gorgeous, with impeccable performances by the actors, beautiful settings, and wonderful cinematography. The visual quality of the DVD version far surpasses my original videorecordings, which I've watched so many times.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Myron Update
Hello Friends,
It is now 22 days since Myron's accident and he continues to make small steps of progress. As you might expect, however 'things' do crop up from time to time. An Infectious Disease physician has been added to Myron's physician list, and is overseeing the treatment of his pneumonia and infections that have begun. The MRSA has reappeared this week and the ID doc started him on 2 different antibiotics which seemed to work right away. Myron had been coughing and that subsided, but he still had a fever that was being treated with Tylenol. The fever could have been coming from a variety of things, but a doppler ultra sound was ordered by the ID doc as blood clots will cause fever also. Sure enough a clot appeared in his right leg. He was started on anticoagulants to dissolve the clot only to have that drug stopped by the pulmonologist who reminded his staff that Myron had had bleeding in the brain. I'm not certain that the brain bleeds have ceased. It was decided to place a filter in the vein or artery above the clot to capture it should it or any part of it break off. That procedure is kind of like a cardiac cath.
He is making progress with the ventilator.He seems not to be experiencing much pain and maybe can get him away from the morphine injections.
He is also being more interactive with people who visit. He'll wave, wink, he is mouthing words, and can very quietly speak some simple words.
Blessings to you all,
Sue
I'm sorry to hear about the setbacks in some areas and pleased about the progress in other areas. We continue to pray.
O God, the strength of the weak and the comfort of sufferers: Mercifully accept our prayers, and grant to your servant Myron the help of your power, that his sickness may be turned into health, and our sorrow into joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
It is now 22 days since Myron's accident and he continues to make small steps of progress. As you might expect, however 'things' do crop up from time to time. An Infectious Disease physician has been added to Myron's physician list, and is overseeing the treatment of his pneumonia and infections that have begun. The MRSA has reappeared this week and the ID doc started him on 2 different antibiotics which seemed to work right away. Myron had been coughing and that subsided, but he still had a fever that was being treated with Tylenol. The fever could have been coming from a variety of things, but a doppler ultra sound was ordered by the ID doc as blood clots will cause fever also. Sure enough a clot appeared in his right leg. He was started on anticoagulants to dissolve the clot only to have that drug stopped by the pulmonologist who reminded his staff that Myron had had bleeding in the brain. I'm not certain that the brain bleeds have ceased. It was decided to place a filter in the vein or artery above the clot to capture it should it or any part of it break off. That procedure is kind of like a cardiac cath.
He is making progress with the ventilator.He seems not to be experiencing much pain and maybe can get him away from the morphine injections.
He is also being more interactive with people who visit. He'll wave, wink, he is mouthing words, and can very quietly speak some simple words.
Blessings to you all,
Sue
I'm sorry to hear about the setbacks in some areas and pleased about the progress in other areas. We continue to pray.
O God, the strength of the weak and the comfort of sufferers: Mercifully accept our prayers, and grant to your servant Myron the help of your power, that his sickness may be turned into health, and our sorrow into joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
I Wish This Man Was My President
Dennis Kucinich was my first choice as the Democratic candidate for president. I knew he would not be chosen, but his policies are my policies. When Dennis speaks, I listen, and for the most part, I agree with him.
Thanks to Allen for the link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)