PROTECT ME, PLEASE, FROM FEMALE MINISTRY!

From Riazat Butt at the Observer:

The Church of England was facing a fresh crisis tonight after the archbishops of Canterbury and York failed to win enough support for a compromise over women bishops at the Church's General Synod.

New concessions to traditionalists in the church, proposed by Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, were rejected by the Anglican clergy, although most bishops and laity at the Synod voted in favour. In dramatic scenes at York, shocked members of the Synod pleaded for time to pray and reflect on the vote and to consider the implications of the rebellion against the two most senior figures in the church.
....

The archbishops' amendment would have given traditionalists the protection they wanted from female ministry, averting a schism over the ordination of women as bishops. (My emphasis) Sentamu and Williams had proposed a special class of bishop to look after parishes who do not wish to have female bishops. The idea angered supporters of women clergy, who wrote to ask the archbishops to withdraw the amendment.

Dear me, yes! The traditionalists need protection from female ministry. What are we, every single one of us, but black widow spiders gone wild devouring not just our mates, but any male in sight? We are beyond dangerous.

Had the amendment been passed, it might have minimised the numbers of clergy converting to Roman Catholicism under an initiative launched by the Vatican last year. A meeting was held in Leicester for those Church of England clergy interested in taking up the Catholic offer.

I doubt passing the amendment would have changed the numbers of those who will leave all that much. If traditionalists depart for Rome in great numbers, I'll be surprised. The Holy Orders of the clergy amongst them will be null and void, and that can't be a pleasant prospect.

The arrangements under which the dioceses would have operated, had the amendments passed, would have been a complicated tangle. And what if either of the two archbishops participated in the ordination of a woman bishop? They would be tainted by the process, and would not the whole line of episcopal succession in the Church of England be put to ruin?

My heart is with the women in the Church of England and their supporters. Even as I write about these matters from a distance, I feel the anger rise within me. I stand in solidarity with the women who have to hear the insulting crap over and over. And I stand in solidarity with LGTB persons who endure listening to the same insulting crap and worse from people who call themselves Christians. Tell me what any of these shenanigans have to do with the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

And I would not put it past the archbishops and their supporters to attempt another 11th hour scheme to have their way and possibly succeed. But, at the very least, the archbishops now know that they have lost the support of a good many bishops, priests and lay folk in their own church.

Thanks to Cathy for the link to the article.


UPDATE: And the wall erected around Ruth Gledhill's blog seems to have been breached as Thinking Anglicans posts her latest entry:

Canon Celia Thomson of Gloucester gave one of the best speeches illustrating the problems with what the Archbishops proposed:

‘This is the source of such sadness, such dismay among the ordained women at all stages of their ministry. The effect would be to legislate for the automatic transfer of episcopal authority in law in a way that would not only damage the authority of a woman bishop but also undermine the whole nature of episcopacy in the Church of England.’ She said the nominated bishops were ‘flying bishops’ by another name and that concept had not worked, in particular for women. It could also open up demands for alternative episcopal oversight in other areas where people did not agree with the diocesan bishop.

But even worse, it would send out a ‘damaging message’ about the Church to the wider world.

‘If the Church is seen to discriminate against women by law, not only will it compromise the ministry of women bishops in future and by default of all its women priests, but more fatally, the mission of the Church in the 21st century. Many people will de sair of the Church. Most people under 40 simply cannot understand it and so dismiss our beloved Church as irrelevant in our life and in attitudes towards the world.

Brava, Canon Thomson!

Ruth adds:

Synod is chastened right now. But it shouldn’t be. It should be celebrating.

Well done the clergy. There is a God, it seems.

Amen, and amen, and amen!

Thanks to Lapin in the comments.

IVOR, IS IT REALLY NOT THAT BAD?

Once again from NOLA:

Residents of south Louisiana who got to know former LSU professor Ivor van Heerden as a tireless critic of the shoddy levees built by the Army Corps of Engineers might be surprised when they see his latest foray into the public arena: on a BP website, where he seems to be downplaying the environmental effects caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

"The public gets the perception that this is the black, heavy, tarry stuff that is in ship's bunkers and it covers everything and smothers it and just kills it, but that's not the kind of oil we're dealing with," Van Heerden says in a video on the BP website, dated July 1. "It's a very, very light oil. It's almost like diesel, and it breaks down very, very rapidly, especially here in Louisiana where it's very hot during the day and the water has suspended sediment in it so it may actually get hotter, and all of those combine with the fact that we have naturally in our system, the organisms, the microbes that break down the oil."

Van Heerden, a marine scientist, is still in the middle of a court fight with LSU over the university's decision not to extend his employment contract this year despite his leadership of a state-sponsored forensic investigation into the reasons levees and floodwalls in the New Orleans area failed during Hurricane Katrina.

Grandpère and I know Ivor, and we've always believed him to be a man of integrity, warning about the continuing and rapid erosion of the Louisiana coastline and the inadequacies of the levees in and around New Orleans years ago and in the aftermath of Katrina and the federal flood, although with his warnings, he put his job at LSU in jeopardy and was eventually fired.

In the video at the BP site, Ivor says, in effect, the damage is not that bad. You hear him say that in their excursions on the shoreline and in the marshes, they find that penetration of oil into the marshes is minimal, that the type of oil that is present has a short life, that they find tiny little tarballs and no black, heavy, tarry stuff, and reiterating that the oil and the dispersants break down quickly.

There are no pictures and no mention of the nasty, smelly tar patties on the beach and in the marshes and the long streaks and patches of reddish crap in the water. I doubt that Ivor would lie, but it seems to me that he puts a spin on the story by what he emphasizes and what he leaves out that is generally favorable to BP. The company Ivor works for, Polaris Applied Sciences, is under contract to BP to assist in clean-up operations, and they are not paid to give BP bad PR.



Read blogger New Orleans Ladder for another take on the story.

Whenever anyone says to me of the damage from the gusher, "It's not that bad," it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. I've seen and heard too much to convince me now that "It's "not that bad".

UPDATE: And the video shows no pictures of oiled birds.

DEEPWATER HORIZON NEWS

From NOLA:

BP will begin replacing the cap on its leaking oil well in the Gulf of Mexico today with a tighter-fitting model that could prevent oil from gushing into the sea entirely, the federal government's point man for spill response said Friday morning.

The multistep process could be complete as soon as late Monday and, if successful, could bring to an end a more than 80 days of oil gushing continuously into the Gulf, said Thad Allen, a retired Coast Guard Admiral who as National Incident Commander is overseeing BP's efforts to rein in the oil gusher.

We shall see. I hope the new cap fits better than the old cap. That the cap will entirely stop the flow, I find hard to believe, but I pray I'm wrong.













Also from NOLA:

For the first time Friday, the Coast Guard and BP acknowledged that a mysterious second pipe, wedged next to the drill pipe in what remains of the Deepwater Horizon's riser, is fouling up the works where the Gulf of Mexico well is spewing hundreds of millions of gallons of crude oil into the sea.

"We used a diamond saw and we got inside. We found there was actually two sets of drill pipe there," said retired Adm. Thad Allen, the top U.S. Coast Guard official overseeing the response to the nation's worst-ever oil spill.

Some experts say a second piece of drill pipe in the riser could have prevented shear rams on the rig's blowout preventer from sealing the well and permanently cutting off the flow of oil after the April 20 explosion. The presence of two pipes could have also contributed to BP's failure to make a clean cut on the riser when securing the existing containment dome, inhibiting its ability to collect the maximum amount of oil.

Whoops! Another pipe! Who knew? Not BP or the US Coast Guard, or did they?

The Coast Guard's acknowledgement of the two metal tubes Friday -- and a subsequent reference by BP to its plans to tie the two pipes together as the company installs a new oil-collection system over the shaved-off riser -- actually comes more than a month after the Department of Energy noted the second pipes using special imaging technology. At the time, BP dismissed the Energy findings as "impossible" because only one pipe in sections was used for drilling, a Tribune News Service story reported last month.

I've lost count of the number of BP's "impossibles" which have proved themselves to be entirely possible, including the original explosion.

And remind me again who the Coast Guard works for.

ALLEN TOUISSAINT - "SWEET TOUCH OF LOVE"

A 180 degree turn from the Trollopian drama presently being played out in the Church of England.

And don't we all need Allen's "Sweet Touch of Love"?

RUTH GLEDHILL AND OTHERS SAY....

Check out the link below at USA Today which will send you to a site to which I will not post links, where you can read Ruth Gledhill's entire article in the Times of London today. Ruth's story is behind the subscription-only wall at the Times. Are you following me?

The beginning of the story from USA Today:

Ruth Gledhill Religion Correspondent The Times July 9 2010 Liberal members of the House of Bishops could launch a protest on the floor of the General Synod in York The Archbishop of Canterbury is facing an unprecedented rebellion from bishops in the....

Tomorrow, other newspapers will, very likely, have the story.

UPDATE: The Guardian's editorial is well worth a read.

The Church of England now expects both the benefits of establishment and the cultural freedom of private religion. At the very least, a national church should not become disconnected from the best values of the country it serves. But as the general synod, which begins tonight, will again confirm, the Church of England is strangely unwilling to do this. It devotes a shocking amount of energy to debating the supposed inferiority of women, gay men and lesbians. These issues matter intensely to some believers inside the church, but they make it look intolerant to the much larger number of people outside it.
....

Rowan Williams...once noted: "We have a special relationship with the cultural life of our country and we must not fall out of step with it if we are not to become absurd and incredible." He said it. But the truth is that his church fell out of step long ago.

Mercy me! How does one extricate oneself from such a tangle?

And our own Jim Naughton of the Episcopal Café has his say in the Guardian.

If the synod allows the Archbishop of Canterbury to further compromise the authority of a bishop over his or her diocese in order to appease opponents of opening the episcopacy to women, I suspect the Church of England will muddle along as it always has. A church that can ignore the fact that it has gay bishops ordaining gay priests who live with gay partners, while its leaders enforce various sanctions on churches for having gay bishops who ordain gay priests with gay partners, can allow sexists to dictate the terms on which it moves toward gender equity without being undone by cognitive dissonance.

Similarly, if the synod should acquiesce in the House of Bishops' desire to embrace the Anglican Covenant, which would significantly diminish the ability of lay people to influence the Communion and effectively elevate homophobia to near creedal status, I imagine that many in the English Church–and other churches for that matter–will shrug their shoulders and carry on, living their lives the best way that they know how. They might, perhaps, be embarrassed by the bishops' attempt to re-establish an empire administered from a palace in London so long after the folly of such an enterprise was made manifest, but the average church-goer has learned to ignore church politics as a matter of self-preservation.

Ouch!

BISHOP NICK BAINES SETS US STRAIGHT

From the Guardian:

So, the Dean of St Albans has been "blocked" from becoming the next Bishop of Southwark. Really? Well, the Telegraph has confidently told us so – so we might as well remove our brains and take their word for it. Or not.

What is amazing about this whole story is not just the shameful behaviour of the leaker (who has sworn an oath of confidentiality), but the credulity of many people who have responded (look, for example, at Thinking Anglicans) is depressing. They have accepted the details and language of the story without thinking. And, predictably, the usual suspects from the extremes of the Church were ready with their quotes of indignation and threat.

Well, despite the fact that the bishop did not name me as one who caused him to feel depressed, (almost certainly not having read my posts!) I feel culpable in a you-know-who-you-are sort of way, having devoted three posts to the subject.

In my defense, as I said to Cathy who sent me the link to Bishop Baines column:

Of course, I understand the need for confidentiality during the the process, weeding out those who don't measure up in the background checks, etc. But once the shortlist is decided, why the secrecy? Bishop Baines says because that's what the procedures are in the CofE. But if the names were made public, there would be no need for leaks. What's wrong with suggestions that more transparency might be a good thing?

Bishop Baines then goes on to give quite a helpful explanation of the process of choosing bishops in the Church of England.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the English Church, and primus inter pares of the Anglican Communion, has no compunctions about interfering in the internal affairs of the Episcopal Church by lecturing our bishops on how to be bishops nor about warning our church as to which of our candidates for bishop are suitable to be elected and given consents. Why then should it matter if a lowly pew warmer from across the pond, with no power whatsoever to make it happen, suggests a bit more transparency and a bit less secrecy in the procedures for choosing bishops in the Church of England?

Nick Baines is Suffragan Bishop of Croydon in the Diocese of Southwark.

FROM THE COMMENTS...

...to my post "A Time of Reckoning For Rowan?".

Wilfried said...

"What is needed is more transparency over how appointments are made. Obsessive secrecy is damaging the church."

What we said yesterday, but I'll add that transparency and openness is about as English as kidney pie is American. It's like my mother says, who now lives in CA, "They may be pushy and rude, but at least you know where you stand." We consecrate gay bishops because we, the TEC as a whole, mean it, not because some cabal orchestrated it, nor as some political ploy.

"He should realise there are greater considerations, like truth, justice, openness, fidelity to the rules and all those things the church proclaims. Many are dismayed by his constant capitulation to the fringe noisemakers."

Rowan hitched his cart to the wrong horse. He's made an idol of unity at all cost, and sold out everything and everyone else to achieve it, which means pandering those who scream the loudest, and kicking his friends who have always been willing to play ball. The Americans and TEC have never threatened to quit the game and take our ball, and dollars, and go home. However, the ones who had tantrums and threatened to leave if they didn't get what they want are leaving anyway. So, in spite of all his Neville Chaimberlain-esque pandering, he's losing the conservatives. Meanwhile, he's kicked TEC so much that we've simply stopped caring. I read the ++KJS's letter as coming very close to saying, "Do what you will, we're done here, and we're moving on, with you or without you." Mind you, she was the one who personally helped push through B033, just days after her election as PB, at great cost to herself, as an attempt to the dialog open and stay in the game. Despite her efforts she's been repeated vilified, demonized, and insulted, mitergate being only the latest instance, so she ain't gonna stick her neck out for him again. Thus he's also losing the Americans who were trying to play his game. The same is happening in his own CoE, where he's sold out Jeffrey John and women clergy for the same idol. Yes, he sold out his convictions and all sense of fair play in the name of a chimerical unity, and as a result faces losing the whole ball of wax.

"I would not give these stories and commentary nearly so much attention were Rowan not attempting to set up a top-heavy structure resembling the Roman Catholic Church for the Anglican Communion..."

My gut tells me the Rowan is not really power hungry, or trying to play Pope. Rather, he's painted himself into a corner. His ham-fisted attempts at pandering, appeasement, and finger-wagging at the wrong people have earned him less unity, rather than more. In growing desperation he's left with his last resort, increasing authoritarianism in an attempt to impose unity from above. I think is he's a very smart and ultimately sincere man, but with a skillset entirely unsuited to the situation in which he finds himself, and he's floundering and lashing out in all the wrong ways. I'm trying to have sympathy for the man, even as I'm angry at all that he's done.

These thoughts have been rattling around my head for a while, so FWIW I wrote them down here.


Wilfried's opinions are not necessarily my opinions, but they are not necessarily not my opinions. Well done, Wilfried.

HOD PRESIDENT BONNIE ANDERSON TO SPEAK IN DIOCESE OF SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies of The Episcopal Church, will be visiting the Diocese of Springfield on Friday, July 23rd at the Decatur Hotel and Conference Center in Decatur, Illinois. She will be speaking on "The Ministry of All the Baptized: the rights and responsibilities of the laity in the leadership of the diocese and TEC."

The Diocese of Springfield is in the process of selecting a new bishop, and Bonnie's visit is sponsored by the group Concerned Laity of the Springfield Diocese (CLSD).

"The Friday evening program provides a rare opportunity to be in the midst of, to hear from, and to enter into discussion with Bonnie Anderson, one of the preeminent laity of The Episcopal Church," sais Chuck Evans, CLSD. "Bonnie's message "The Ministry of all the Baptized" is essential spiritual nourishment for all lay and clergy within the Diocese of Springfield as we move towards the election of a new Bishop and the new paths forward that will inevitable be charted."

CLSD has issued a special invitation to the people of the Diocese of Quincy to join them in meeting with Bonnie. This link will take you to a map of the Decatur Hotel and Conference center. If you plan to stay overnight, you can reserve a room at a special block rate by calling 217-422-8800 and mention the Bonnie Anderson/CLSD event. Bonnie's presentation is at 7:30 p.m. There is a Hospitality Room starting at 6 p.m. (BYOB/F)

This link will take you to a Diocesan website page with pictures of all of the Nominees. If you click on a specific picture the submitted documents supporting the nomination become available. This represents a vast majority of the information included in the Nominee Binder -- the CDs with a video presentation of the answers to the questions is probably the most significant missing piece, according to Chuck.

Bonnie Anderson's website is here.

NEW DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS

These fit so well they should be in a dictionary.

ADULT:
A person who has stopped growing at both ends and is now growing in the middle.

BEAUTY PARLOR:
A place where women curl up and dye.

CANNIBAL:
Someone who is fed up with people.

CHICKENS:
The only animals you eat before they are born and after they are dead.

COMMITTEE:
A body that keeps minutes and wastes hours.

DUST:
Mud with the juice squeezed out.

EGOTIST:
Someone who is usually me-deep in conversation.

HANDKERCHIEF:
Cold Storage.

INFLATION:
Cutting money in half without damaging the paper.

MOSQUITO:
An insect that makes you like flies better.

RAISIN:
Grape with a sunburn.

SECRET:
Something you tell to one person at a time.

SKELETON:
A bunch of bones with the person scraped off.

TOOTHACHE:
The pain that drives you to extraction.

TOMORROW:
One of the greatest labour saving devices of today.

YAWN:
An honest opinion openly expressed.

and MY Favourite!!
=========================
WRINKLES:
Something other people have, similar to my character lines.

Don't blame me. Blame Doug.

OH MY GOODNESS!

From Grand Gallicho at Commonweal:

Everybody relax. As widely expected, Rome is about to issue new rules for handling priests who sexually abuse minors, including those who view child pornography and abuse adults with mentally disabilities, classifying such acts as grave canonical crimes.

Good news! Read the details at the link.

But wait!

Oh, and the new document will include those who try to ordain women and women who try to get ordained.

You can't make this stuff up.

Says Gallicho:

It will be interesting to see how the new norms and their accompanying documentation handle the issue of women’s ordination. Footnote? Bullet point? Boldfaced and highlighted? Whatever the case, why now? To fuel the suspicion that in the 1980s and ’90s the CDF was more interested in disciplining “liberal” doctrinal abusers than it was abuser priests?

The Vatican takes one step forward and I can't even count how many steps backward.

H/T to Andrew Sullivan at the The Daily Dish.