BASTILLE DAY IN NEW ORLEANS

From NOLA:

They were assigned to different locations in France 65 years ago, but today, five Louisiana veterans will be together at the New Orleans Museum of Art to receive France's highest distinction for their service during World War II.

Ivan J. Breaux of Kaplan, John Copes of Baton Rouge, William Haar of Metairie, Richard Whaley of Lafayette and Frank H. Walk of New Orleans will receive the Legion of Honor, a French order established by Napoleon Bonaparte.

Olivier Brochenin, the consul general of France in New Orleans, will bestow the honor at a ceremony preceding a reception for Bastille Day, the French national holiday. Two other veterans, Voorhies Dewailly and Warren Butcher, also will receive the award but cannot attend the ceremony.
....

Brochenin said the significance of their efforts becomes more impressive as time goes on and fewer people have firsthand memories of the war.

“The sacrifice of these soldiers is unbelievable,” Brochenin said.

The National Order of the Legion of Honor was founded by Napoleon in 1802 to pay tribute to military officials who had served France. Today, French citizens can receive the honor for military or civil work. But it has been extended to noncitizens for outstanding work, including World War II veterans.

“There will be no other, better way for the French republic to show how much we appreciate (them),” Brochenin said.

And there is no better day, Brochenin said, than the French national holiday.

“The national day of France, which is the most important day for the French people...I think that day is the best to pay tribute,” he said.

Merçi, Monsieur le Consul. Although our own government sometimes seems not to care much for the people of south Louisiana, the French still love us. After the neglect following Katrina and the federal flood, we were only half-joking when we pled with France to buy us back.

HOLY FAMILY ADOPTION AGENCY ADOPTED

From The Huffington Post:

Community-based nonprofit organizations are struggling for their organizational lives these days. The oppressive economic downturn has made it hard to keep their doors open to provide services while fundraising from private individuals and foundations has become downright Darwinian. Maintaining one's donor base is supremely critical for any struggling nonprofit group.

Which is exactly why the recent story of a tiny organization named Holy Family Adoption Services in Los Angeles is pretty courageous.

Holy Family Adoption Services provides adoption, foster care, and family support services for infants and toddlers who are often born into very high-risk situations and require placement into a loving home. Since 1949, they have been helping these children whose mothers have been victimized themselves by family violence, or who suffer from addiction, or who are just ill-prepared for motherhood.

For most of its organizational life, Holy Family Adoption Services operated in partnership with the Catholic Archdiocese in Los Angeles. It had the financial and in-kind support from the church as well as the support of many generous Catholic individuals and foundations - until it became known that the Holy Family Adoption Services staff placed a handful of the thousands of children it cared for with same-sex couples. The State of California prohibits discriminating against same-sex couples in adoption placement and Holy Family Adoption Services was abiding by that state law.

In 2007, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles made it clear that Holy Family would have to stop placing children with same-sex couples. Instead of giving in, the Holy Family Adoption Services board of directors ultimately decided that nothing was more important than providing loving and supportive homes for at-risk infants and children and that no otherwise qualified home should be closed to these children simply because of the gender and sexual orientation of the family members within it.

The Catholic Archdiocese withdrew their support, as did most Catholic donors. Holy Family Adoption Services was forced to lay off staff, reduce services, and seek new sources of support in the midst of an economic recession.

Enter Bishop Jon Bruno of the Episcopal Diocese. When Bishop Bruno learned of Holy Family's courage and fate, he invited the organization to be housed under the auspices of his church. This kept the organization alive.

But Holy Family Adoption Services valiantly limps on, and the organization requires new sources of support to continue on with their mission. Last month, our foundation provided a $50,000 grant to the organization, but much more is needed.

While civic and public discourse these days seems to be dominated by scapegoating, intolerance, and even hate - Arizona's anti-immigration legislation and California's Prop. 8 battle embody such activity - we want to take a quiet moment to acknowledge the moral courage of the board of directors of Holy Family Adoption Services and Bishop Jon Bruno. They are standing up for the infants who need them most. We hope you'll find it in your heart to do the same.

Robert K. Ross, MD
President & CEO, The California Endowment

If you are interested in supporting Holy Family Adoption Services, please contact www.hfs.org or telephone 213 - 202-3900.

What a profile in courage! The board put the welfare of the children first - not to mention that they chose to follow the law.

Bravo Bishop Jon Bruno of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles! You are a mensch.

I know that we are told not to let the left hand know what the right hand is doing, but I'm telling. I'm headed right now to the website to make a donation.

Pictures from the Holy Family Services website.

H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead, and thanks to Tom Sramek in the comments there for the (slightly edited) title of the post.

WE HAVE THEM TOO

From The Lead:

The Episcopal bishop of the Erie-based Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania is reaching out to women who may have been sexually abused in their childhoods by one of his deceased predecessors, asking them to contact him confidentially as part of his effort to “seek healing and reconciliation for those who have been harmed.”

In a pastoral letter read today after services in the diocese’s 34 churches, the Rt. Rev, Sean Rowe, 35, said he has learned of four credible allegations of sexual abuse committed by Donald Davis, who was bishop of the diocese from 1974 to 1991. The four cases occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Rowe said one of the victims contacted him in late March, and that he immediately began an investigation that unearthed information on three previous cases.

“Sexual abuse in any form is abhorrent in any community, and as your bishop, I feel particular pain that one of my predecessors betrayed the trust and innocence of children,” Rowe said. “On behalf of the church, I offer an abject apology to Bishop Davis’ victims, their families, and everyone whose trust in the church has been violated, and I ask for your forgiveness.”

Some of the cases had been known to some national church authorities, but had never been made public.

Sad news, indeed, of the cases of abuse by a bishop (no less!) of the Episcopal Church. And that the abuse was made not public must be called what it is - a cover-up.

Read the text of Bishop Rowe's pastoral letter at The Lead. Here is an excerpt:

I cannot undo the grievous wrongs that Bishop Davis has done, nor take away the pain of his victims, but I can do my best to ensure that, from now on, this diocese will tell the truth and seek healing and reconciliation for those who have been harmed. That is why I am making this situation public and asking anyone else who may have been abused by Bishop Davis to come forward, publicly or confidentially, to me. The existence of four victims makes it possible that there are others, and we are bound as Christians to seek their healing. We are working closely with the Office of the Presiding Bishop to do so. I have talked directly with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and she supports my decision to speak with you about these matters.

Bishop Rowe does the right thing to bring the matter into the light and to offer healing and reconciliation to those who were abused.

"DESPICABLE ME" - I HAD TO GET AWAY

Needing a break from Church of England stuff, after I dropped my granddaughter off at her friend's house, my grandson and I headed for the theater to see "Despicable Me". GS wanted to see "The Last Airbender", but when I checked the reviews for the two movies, "Despicable Me" was highly recommended, but the reviewers panned "The Last Airbender". Since GS likes the TV show, I had to do quite a bit of talking to get him to agree to see my preference.

Before the movie, GS and I had our little contretemps at the concession stand, because he wanted the LARGE box of candy, and I insisted on the regular size candy. GS is a sugar-junkie, and when he ODs on the sweets, he goes into orbit. In the end, I prevailed, because I had the money. When the attendant handed GS the Icee which he had ordered, he said, "That's not what I wanted. I wanted a small." The worker said, "That IS a small." In truth, there are no longer any small sizes at concession stands in movie theaters. The server said she would take the drink back, but she had already put the charge on my credit card, and she didn't know how to make a change and would need to call the manager. I told GS, "Keep the drink, please. The movie is about to start," which he did, and the girl at the stand gave us extra popcorn. For what? As a consolation prize to GS who did not get exactly what he wanted? Actually, she may have thought I was mean not to let GS have his LARGE box of candy.

In the end, both of us thoroughly enjoyed the film. The story was delightful and funny. There was enough suspense, gadgetry, and cartoon-type fighting, in which no one gets really hurt, to please a 10 year old and enough humor for grown-ups, which passed right over the kids' heads, to keep me laughing and entertained - altogether a pleasure, and we both left the theater smiling. I recommend the movie for all ages. "Despicable Me" is not a movie that adults must endure for the sake of the children.

EYE ON WHICH BALL?

From the AP:

Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana says he supports conservative organizations challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship in court.

Vitter, who is running for re-election, made the comments at a town hall-style event in Metairie, La., on Sunday when a constituent asked what he would do about what the questioner said was Obama's "refusal to produce a valid birth certificate."

Such claims about Obama's birth certificate have been discredited. But with the crowd applauding the question, Vitter responded that although he doesn't personally have legal standing to bring litigation, he supports "conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court," according to a video of the event.

"I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it," Vitter said, although he later cautioned that the matter could distract from policy issues.

"I think if we focus on that issue and let our eye off the ball ... I think that's a big mistake," he said. "I'm not dismissing any of this. I think first and foremost, we need to fight the Obama agenda at the ballot box starting this fall."

If the crowd applauds, you go with the crowd, right? But not to the point of actually joining the legal battle, because perhaps, Sen. Vitter, you really do understand that the claims have no legal standing.

Howevah! You may want to reconsider whether it might be a good thing if your constituents focus on the matter of Obama's birth certificate, because it may distract them from the little matter of your retaining a staff member for two years after knowing that he held his girl friend captive and slashed her with a knife. Think about it. That's the ball that you don't want your constituents to have their collective eye on.

There's no mention in the article of any attendees at the town meeting questioning Vitter about the little matter, but perhaps only loyalists were allowed in. In any case, Metairie is one of the bastions of Vitter's support.

H/T to Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly and to Lapin for the link.

ON THE OTHER HAND....

Lapin notes in the comments:

And an excellent post this morning by "Wilf" at Thinking Anglicans:

"What none of the press reports seem to acknowledge is that there is significant accommodation of those opposed to the ordination of women as priests and bishops. They have a statutory right to ask for male only ministry, which they will then get. For many of us that is a pretty big concession.

What has happened is that the legislation commended by the Synod has framed concessions for objectors in this way (the ability to decline ministry) rather than by setting up alternative structures or introducing the ability to claim that women priests are lawful but invalid. This is consistent with the approach of the 1992 measure (i.e. resolutions A and B).

If press journalists are reading this - please stop saying that there is no accommodation for those opposed in the legislation.

And if the ABC is reading this - please say something positive about the wonderful contribution of women priests over the last 16 years and deacons over the last 23. This sort of morale-boosting affirmation would be very well received by a group of priests who have to spend a great deal of time being told that they're a problem."

Quite true. It's not as though those opposed to women bishops for reasons of conscience walk away empty-handed. The moaning of the objectors distracts us all, including the press, from the accommodations for them that are included in the legislation.

And wouldn't it be lovely if the ABC praised and thanked the women who have served the Church of England and its people for a good many years?


UPDATE: Ann Fontaine at The Lead posts on the years-long process still to come before the Church of England ordains its first woman bishop.

JESUS AND MO - EARTH

As usual, click on the picture for the larger view.

From Jesus and Mo.

AWWWW...

From the Guardian:

It is an unusual romance, to say the least. He is made of flesh, blood and shell while she is constructed entirely out of plastic.

But after years of heartache, Timmy the tortoise seems to have found some sort of comfort by teaming up with Tanya the plastic toy tortoise.

Timmy, a Hermann's tortoise (Testudo hermanni), appears to dote on Tanya night and day since the pair were brought together by keepers at the sanctuary where he lives after he was "bullied" by other real tortoises.

The sprightly 60-year-old fetches her food (and does not seem to mind that she does not eat it) and nuzzles his head against hers. He will not go to bed unless she is put into his hut before him.

Surely one of the sweetest stories I've read in a while. Wouldn't it be lovely if Timmy found a live turtle sweetie? Although the way he dotes on Tanya, perhaps he wouldn't take to a live lady turtle. He may prefer the quiet type.

Thanks to Cathy for the link.


UPDATE:Thanks to Lapin for the link to a video of Timmy and Tanya.

BEEN THERE

A woman was following a grandfather, in the supermarket, with his badly-behaved 3-year-old grandson. It was obvious to her that he really had his hands full. The child was screaming for sweets in the candy aisle, and for fruit, cereal and soda in the other aisles.

Meanwhile, Gramps was working his way around, saying, in a very controlled voice, "Easy, William. We won't be long. Easy boy." Another outburst, and she heard the grand-dad calmly saying, "It's okay, William. Just a couple of more minutes, and we'll be out of here. Hang in there, boy."

At the checkout counter, the little terror was now throwing items out of the cart. Gramps said again, in a continuing controlled voice, "William, William. Relax, buddy. Don't get upset, now. We'll be home in five-minutes. Just, stay cool, William."

Very impressed, the woman went outside, where the grandfather was loading both his groceries, and the obnoxious little cuss, into the car.

She said to the calm elderly gentleman, "It's really none of my business, but, you were simply amazing, in there. I just don't know how you actually did it. That whole time, you simply kept your composure and, no matter how loud and disruptive he eventually got, you just calmly kept saying that things would soon be okay. William is so very lucky, to have you as his grand-father."

"Thanks, lady," said the grandfather. "However, I'm actually William. This little brat's name is Steve."

Don blame me. Blame Doug.

MORE ON WOMEN BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Lapinbizarre has left a new comment on your post "PROTECT ME, PLEASE, FROM FEMALE MINISTRY!":

According to Simon Sarmiento's account at Thinking Anglicans, the "Women Bishops" measure has passed, apparently without a vote count. The proposal of Simon Killwick, an Anglo-Catholic priest, that the measure be sent back to committee for further revision, was defeated 102 to 293 (12 abstentions), and an amendment requiring 2/3 majorities for any future revision to the legislation passed by 287 to 78 (20 abstentions) even though the steering committee opposed the measure. Clearly, therefore, General Synod is firmly behind the legislation, notwithstanding the closeness of Saturday's vote.

Thanks, Lapin. The whole process had become too detailed and complicated for me to follow. I don't have a "Robert's Rules of Order" kind of mind. My brain tunes out of its own volition after a spell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that if the actions taken at General Synod on women bishops are ratified by GS two years from now, after further discussion and consideration by the dioceses of the CofE, the first female bishop could be ordained in 2014. The wheels of justice in the Church of England grind slowly....

And there's Jonathan Wynne-Jones" scarifying piece in the Telegraph:

Canon David Houlding, a prebendary at St Paul’s cathedral, estimated that as many as 200 traditionalist clergy could leave the Church, taking thousands of worshippers with them.
....

Fr Jonathan Baker, principle of Pusey House and a leading traditionalist, warned that young Anglo-Catholic priests will struggle to see a future in the Church of England.

“It is bound to be more difficult to hold on to people now,” he said. “How can you stay in a family where members of the family have no need of you.”

The continuing threats of departure became tiresome after a while, as I know from the ongoing warnings by certain members of our own Episcopal Church, who continue their stance with one foot in and one foot out of the church, all the while bemoaning the church which has fallen into heresy and revisionism and is hardly even Christian any longer. Although I wish that no one would leave, the repeated threats tempt me to give the malcontents a gentle push toward the door. But, of course, I would never do such a thing!