PLANS FOR THE FUTURE RC ORDINARIATE IN THE US

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette blog:

Wednesday’s session of the meeting of the U.S. conference of Catholic Bishops was a feast for ecclesiology wonks of both the Catholic and Episcopal/Anglican persuasion. Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington DC, better known to my readers is the former bishop of Pittsburgh, reported on the progress of starting an ordinariate – a sort of non-geographical, nationwide diocese – for Anglican parishes that wish to convert en masse to Catholicism.

The project stems from a constitution that Pope Benedict approved in 2009, following years of lobbying by some theologically conservative Anglicans worldwide, particularly in Australia. One was founded in England and Wales in January and Cardinal Wuerl said that he wouldn’t be surprised to see one in the U.S. by the end of 2011. But in the meantime there are complex issues to address, ranging from retraining for priests to assisting Anglicans who are divorced and remarried through the annulment process in the Catholic Church. He also addressed a mistaken public perception that married priests will remain the norm in these Anglican-heritage parishes.
....

Cardinal Wuerl is a good friend of Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church in North America, who is on record that he doesn’t expect many parishes in his new church to be interested in converting to Catholicism. Many of them identify with the evangelical or charismatic traditions rather than Catholicism. And the ACNA bishop for Anglo-Catholics in that body has said that he’s not interested because of differences with the Catholic Church over papal authority and other doctrinal issues.

Friendship only goes so far for "Archbishop" Duncan.

“It’s only the first generation that will have married clergy. In the second generation the intention is that candidates for priesthood coming out of the community will be celibate. Provision has been made for an ad hoc petition [for an exception] to the Holy See, but the presumption is that this is for the first generation,” he said.
....

Ultimately the inquirers will be sorted into three categories: Those who can he ordained as Catholic priests after a specially-developed nine-month intensive seminary course; those who require more intensive seminary education and "those whose formation histories would not recommend them for either of these options.”

Among those who will not be accepted as Catholic priests are those who were originally Catholic priests and left the Catholic priesthood for the Episcopal or Anglican churches, Cardinal Wuerl said.

“They are automatically excluded. . . A former Catholic priest cannot apply for this,” he said.

So. To the priests who left the Roman Catholic Church, married, and now wish to be welcomed back into the RCC fold as a priests, forget about it. And any Roman Catholic priests who have ideas, you are forewarned.

Married Anglican bishops can be ordained as Catholic priests, but not as Catholic bishops, Cardinal Wuerl said. This maintains a tradition shared with Orthodox Christianity, which has a married priesthood, but celibate bishops.

Sorry, Your Graces, no mitres for you.

A practical and pastoral problem is the number of Episcopalians and Anglicans who are divorced and remarried. While such remarriage requires permission of the bishop in the Episcopal Church, the Catholic Church requires an annulment in which a church court determines that the first marriage didn’t meet the church’s standard for a sacramental union. He asked the bishops to make their marriage tribunals available to these couples. Causes for a declaration of nullity can range from having signed a pre-nuptial agreement, to a marriage forced by pregnancy to being hung over on the day of the wedding.

I did not know being hung over on the day of the wedding invalidates a marriage. Actually, what I've seen a time or two is a groom and his groomsmen who have obviously been hitting the bottle on the very day of the wedding. I wonder what the rules are about that situation.

The tribunals will determine “what can be regularized,” he said. But if there are no grounds for annulment, “then there is the pastoral decision of who cannot, therefore, receive the Eucharist.”

All right, then. Do I have this right? Converts will be received into the RCC church, but they will not be able to take communion until they obtain an annulment. Come on in, but don't come to the table. The folks who are divorced will have to get what looks to me very like another divorce, a Roman Catholic divorce with only a change of name to an annulment.

There you have it - a glimpse of the rules for parishes, bishops, and priests who wish to join the RCC en masse.

Two items of note in the announcement by Bishop Cardinal Wuerl:

The St. Mary’s faculty member in charge of it is the Rev. Jeffrey Steenson, formerly the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande, who was received into the Catholic Church in 2007.

Hmmm.

And:

Once all of that documentation [on the clergy] has been sent to the Vatican, the candidate will cease celebrating the Anglican Eucharist.

Why would an Episcopal priest continue to preside at the Eucharist after he believes his orders are invalid?

Thanks to Ann V. for the link.

SIGNS

Click on the signs for the larger view. Thank you.










Thanks to Ann.

STORY OF THE DAY - MAGICAL THINKING (AKA DISAPPEARING ACT)

Can make stuff magically disappear
especially if it's got a lot of butter &
sugar in it

From StoryPeople.

VOICES OF WOMEN HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD

The Rev Vanessa Herrick is a priest in the Church of England, which is presently engaged in deciding through legislation in General Synod whether women bishops will be allowed to serve with the same degree of authority as male bishops.

In her splendid statement which follows, Vanessa covers all the bases as a clear and eloquent voice for justice and equality for women in the Church of England. Her message applies equally to other Christian churches. Although the Episcopal Church has ordained women as priests for 34 years and women as bishops for 22 years, certain Episcopalians have not yet accepted the church’s policies. Vanessa’s words may be helpful as an educational aid to those who still oppose women priests and women bishops to help them catch up with the official policy of the church and the rest of us who believe that all the baptized are to be treated equally.

As the first woman ordained to the episcopacy in the Episcopal Church, The Rt Rev Barbara Harris said, "How can you initiate someone and then treat them like a half-assed baptized?"

Vanessa's words:

Over the past ten years, many words have been spoken. But what has been noticeable is that the voice of women themselves has been relatively quiet. This comparative silence has been the product of generosity, patience and respect. Generosity, because we recognise the pain women bishops would bring for some; patience, because we know it takes time to listen, reflect and work out a way forward; respect, because we value and treasure the rich inheritance and diversity which we share as Anglicans. Indeed, over my own journey of discipleship, I have travelled from roots in the conservative evangelical tradition, through charismatic renewal to a place where I am now most at home in a more catholic setting for worship and a less conservative stance theologically. I love the Church of England – though it can sometimes be the most frustrating institution in the world!

But the voice that has not really been heard is the voice of the women themselves. The ones about whom we are talking. As so often in the history of the church and of the world, it’s the voice of those who’ll be most affected by a decision made about them that sometimes seems to go unnoticed: the voice of women who, at present, have no voice in the House of Bishops; who are unable to respond to a vocation to the episcopate; whose priestly ministries are, in the main, accepted or tolerated but sometimes despised; the ones whose lives, ministries and even identities may be further affected by not being able to enter this third order of ministry. And that’s why I ask that you listen to just a few more words – explanatory and personal – which, I hope, may express something of the feelings of women who are ordained – but also of those – lay and ordained, male and female – who long to see women as bishops in the Church.

So let me offer some brief responses to the key theologically issues.

First, the issue of headship. Much rests (from the conservative evangelical viewpoint) on the interpretation of key texts from Genesis and from Paul. The equality of men and women as being made in the image of God is not disputed. (See Genesis 1.26-28) Where the difficulty arises is in respect of Genesis 3.16 which, as a consequence of The Fall, places the woman as functionally subordinate to the man. This is then further interpreted by Paul as the foundation for a range of understandings both within the church and in respect of marriage and family life, whereby male headship and female subordination becomes the norm.

Amongst others, I believe this interpretation to be mistaken because:

-it fails to acknowledge the fact that the overall trajectory of Scripture is one in which the essential dignity, equality and complementarity of the whole of humanity – disrupted by the Fall – is then fully restored in the New Testament as a result of the work of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit; in short, it undermines the efficacy of the work of Christ in bringing about the New Creation;

-it fails to account for the extraordinarily counter-cultural behaviour of Jesus in the way he both related to, affirmed and commissioned women during his time on earth;

-it fails to acknowledge the cultural context in which the early church emerged – one where in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman world, women were given no place in public life but were largely confined to the domestic sphere;

To suggest that women should always be subordinate to men is, to my mind, to misunderstand what Scripture says.

Second, there’s sacramental assurance… For me this view is, at best, theologically incomprehensible and at worst positively distasteful. First, I believe it offers a distorted view of orders, for it seems to rest more on the perceived power of human lineage than on authority given by God. Whilst I do believe in the importance and significance of ‘succession’ in the sense that episcopal ordination is the appropriate outworking of the Church’s responsibility only to ordain those whose call has been tested by God and by the Church, a person’s ordination is not, to my mind, dependent upon gender or ‘pedigree’. Ordination is – as with every sacrament – an invitation to the Holy Spirit to pour out the grace of God upon those who seek him. Our authority and assurance in respect of orders therefore comes, primarily, from God – not from anything intrinsic to the character, gender or adequacy of the bishop ordaining. Just as the celebration of the Eucharist does not depend on the worthiness of the President of that Eucharist but (as Article 26 says) is “effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise”, so, I believe, the sacrament of ordination is made effectual by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit, irrespective of the gender of the bishop ordaining.

But there is another aspect which troubles me. To say that a woman cannot be a bishop simply because she is a woman and Jesus was a man – and hence a woman cannot ‘represent Christ’ at the Eucharist, (or indeed in any of the other functions vested in episcopal office), is to deny the ‘female’ in God. For, if (as Genesis 1 tells us) human beings are made in the image of God, male and female, then logically, there is male and female in God. And if Christ himself is, as Colossians tells us, “the image of the invisible God” then it follows, by extension that there is male and female in Christ. The priest or bishop thus represents Christ in being human rather than in being male.

But the most uncomfortable – and most distasteful – aspect of this part of the traditional catholic response is the way in which it tells me, at a ‘gut’ level, that I am somehow a charlatan; second-class; incomplete; inadequate. I am sure that those who take this view would deny this outright. But let me ask you: how would it be if, in all these debates, we replaced the word ‘woman’ with the word ‘Muslim’ or ‘Jew’ or ‘black’? We would be horrified at some of the statements that are made….

Third, there’s unity – both within the Church of England; and in respect of ecumenical relations. For some, a woman bishop would be a focus of disunity rather than unity. Some parishes and clergy will not be ‘in communion’ with her. Moreover, the bishops themselves would not be ‘in communion’ with one another – for some will be deemed ‘pure’ and others ‘tainted’; thus the very source of the Church of England’s unity will itself be compromised. Yet, sadly, in practice, our communion is already impaired – even within this Diocese. To ordain women as bishops will make little difference.

The question of unity is also frequently cited in regard to ecumenical relations. However, in relation to Rome, Anglican orders are deemed ‘null and void’ anyway, so having women as bishops would make little difference. Moreover, the presence (for over twenty years) of female bishops within the Anglican Communion has not prevented the continuation of ecumenical dialogue, so there is no reason to believe that women bishops in the Church of England would do so. Indeed, many within the Roman Catholic Church are desperate for the Church of England to ordain women as bishops in order to strengthen their own – albeit muted – campaign to allow women to exercise ordained ministry at all. Add the fact that some of our protestant ecumenical partners will not move forward in partnership with us until the Church of England does fully open its orders of ministry to both genders, and matters are further complicated. Ultimately, the Church of England is part of Christ’s universal church, but its actions and decisions are not to be bound by the constraints of others – whether Catholic or Protestant. It makes its own decisions.

So is this legislation the best we can hope for?

No other province in the Anglican Communion has resorted to legislation to address the issue of women bishops. For some, trust in the generosity, sensitivity and care of one’s diocesan bishop is, it would seem, insufficient. Indeed, the proposed legislation offers those who cannot accept women bishops far greater security than they presently have in relation to women priests: all diocesan bishops will – in law – be required to establish a ‘scheme’ and have regard to the Code of Practice. The draft legislation is complex; it is imperfect; but it may provide a workable solution to the many dilemmas we have outlined.

Inevitably there are drawbacks and anxieties. For women, the drawbacks are significant: the possibility of rejecting their orders and ministry will be enshrined in law and those who so reject them will continue for the foreseeable future to be ordained as deacons, priests and bishops themselves. No other organisation would have to audacity to enshrine such discrimination in law.

In addition, it is likely that those who object to women in the episcopate will continue to press for jurisdiction for their own bishops ‘as of right’ rather than by delegation, by some form of legal ‘transfer’ of jurisdiction, or (as the archbishops attempted to do by their Amendment in July 2010) by some form of co-jurisdiction. This would so weaken the role of the diocesan bishop (whether male or female) that the office becomes untenable. In 2008, and again in 2010, I was a signatory to two letters from some fifty senior women in the Church of England- one to the House of Bishops, the other to the Archbishops. In writing, we indicated that if the Church decided to ordain women to any form of episcopacy that was in some way ‘watered-down’, then we would sadly choose to ‘wait’, rather than press forward. We will simply not comply with anything which would create a form of second-class female bishop.

So is now the right time to be moving forward?

There are those conservative evangelicals and traditional catholics who would say we should wait. But to do so would be incredibly destructive:

-it would prolong the agony of not having resolved this issue;

-it would continue to absorb time and energy and be a huge distraction from our primary task of mission;

-it would deprive the Church – and particularly the House of Bishops – of the wisdom, skills, sensitivity and insight of women in senior leadership in the Church;

More significantly, it would utterly undermine the Church’s credibility as an institution, for – whatever the niceties of theological argument – the wider society will simply perceive a negative outcome on this issue to be proof that the Church of England is anachronistic, out of touch with reality, misogynistic, and plainly discriminatory against women. For most people, the issue of women bishops (if they are interested at all) is one of justice and equality. A decision not to ordain women as bishops – or even to delay – would have a disastrously 0negative impact on the mission of the Church and on vocations. Whilst the Church should not ‘be conformed to the world’, I do believe we have to take very seriously our calling to ‘proclaim the gospel afresh in each generation’ – and that means not only ‘listening’ to our generation, but also being acutely aware of the messages we give by the actions we take.

Finally, something of my own feelings about all this. When I was asked to speak in favour of women bishops, I was reluctant to do so. Not because I don’t believe women should be bishops – I do; but because, for the past eight and a half years, I’ve tried to work as Director of Ministry and DDO with fairness and a degree of objectivity, suppressing my own feelings and sense of disquiet in order to work faithfully in a ministry I feel called to exercise. But I can’t deny in speaking today that there’ve been very painful moments for me as a woman priest in the Church of God. For example, what is it about me that means that the bishop who ordained me is ‘tainted’? Am I ‘unclean’ in some way? Women priests have had to get used to such things over the past seventeen years, but it has often brought tears. For my vocation and my identity can’t be separated: I am a priest. And when I’m told by some that I’m not a priest, then that is an affront to who I am – not simply a denial of my role or job. If women priests are firm and defend themselves, they are accused of being ‘pushy’ or aggressive; if they express their pain, they are accused of being ‘all emotional’.

I’m tired of being perceived as ‘a problem’. I simply want to get on with what I’m called to. God has called me to be a priest and I believe he is calling some of the women in my generation to be bishops. I dare to believe that the Church of England needs us. No one has asked what might happen if the three thousand women clergy in the Church of England were to decide that ‘enough is enough’, and move to another province where their ministry is welcome. No one has contemplated the effect of a further ‘rejection’ of their orders on those without whom the Church simply could not now function. Women clergy don’t wish to hold the Church to ransom: but they also don’t want to be taken for granted. So, please take seriously the pain that we also bear: for it’s very real; and allow us to respond to God within all three orders of ministry – and find ourselves welcomed.

This draft legislation’s passage through the synodical process may well be difficult. Some, on both sides of the argument, will think it is not good enough. My own view is that it’s the best the Church can hope for – a credible way through the quagmire, but not perfect. To delay would, I believe, be a very big mistake – both for our own sanity as an institution and for the mission of the Church. So I hope very much that in October you will vote in favour of moving forward. In the meantime, I pray for all who disagree – that our relationships may be characterised by grace and generosity and not by that acrimony which the media so love. May the Holy Spirit of Pentecost hover over God’s Church giving us discernment, courage and healing as we share together in the task of decision-making and bringing in Christ’s Kingdom.

Vanessa Herrick

June 2011

Posted with Vanessa Herrick's permission.

H/T to Lesley at Lesley's Blog, who first posted Vanessa's statement.

NO THANK YOU, SARAH

For what it's worth, I'm trying not to write about Sarah Palin, but the article in the Guardian about Palin's attempt to have a photo-op with Margaret Thatcher tickled my funny bone.

A firestorm on the US right has erupted after the Guardian reported that Sarah Palin will be denied a meeting with Lady Thatcher on the grounds that it would be "belittling" for her to meet the darling of the Tea Party movement.

Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host, devoted the opening section of his radio show to denouncing the "preposterous" Guardian report, as Palin supporters accused Thatcher's circle of disgracing the former prime minister.

The US conservative right reacted furiously after the Guardian reported that Thatcher's aides had decided it would be inappropriate for her to meet Palin, who is planning to visit London next month en route to Sudan.
....

One Thatcher ally told the Guardian: "Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."

I don't know about the rest of my fellow Americans, but I take the aide's remark as a personal affront. My favorite radio talk show host was right there with me in high dudgeon. You ain't seen nuthin' yet, until you've see Rush in firestorm mode, which he's in nearly every day. What a wonder that Rush so often finds an issue, or two, or three to set him on fire.

Lady Thatcher will be busy on July 4th attending the unveiling of a statue of Ronald Reagan in front of the US Embassy on the 100th anniversary of his birth. My question: Will Palin crash the event?

Thanks to Doug for the link.

THE GOOD NEWS TODAY

From Of Course, I Could Be Wrong:

he Archdiocese of Boston commanded St. Cecilia’s Church in the city’s Back Bay neighborhood not to go forward with a mass for GLBT people of faith over Pride weekend. But the spirit could not be suppressed: Local gays, and the church’s pastor, spoke out with messages of love and community. The Rev. John Unni made it clear that in his church, worshipers of all stripes would be accepted into the fellowship.

"You are welcome here, gay or straight, rich or poor, young or old, black or white," declared the Catholic priest in the course of the next scheduled mass. "Here, you all can say, ’I can worship the God who made me as I am.’"

"We are not this renegade, crazy, liberal church," Unni told his parishioners. "We’re just Christians trying to live the gospel."

All right, Fr John!

The archdiocese spokesperson, Terrence C. Donilon, sought to cast the hierarchy’s response in terms of love.

"The teachings of the Catholic Church are set in stone, but that doesn’t stop us from loving people from different walks of life." he said.

Methinks the archdiocesan hierarchy sought but did not find. What I said in the comments at OCICBW:

Grandmère Mimi said...

"The teachings of the Catholic Church are set in stone...."

How does the Spirit move in stone? It doesn't. Fr John follows the Wind, the Breath of God. Thanks be to God for Fr John and others like him, who are not weighed down by the stone, but are rather swept aloft by the Wind.

Please do read MadPriest's brief commentary, which is - how shall I put it? - edgy, to say the least.

From Ann Fontaine at The Lead.

Bishop Larry Provenzano, of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, signed a statement by the Empire State Pride Agenda and its Pride in the Pulpit arm, which says in part:

It would be a blessing if New York were to allow loving, committed gay and lesbian couples to be married. We call on the Legislature to pass this legislation for the good of these couples and for the good of our great State.

Read the rest of the statement at The Lead or at the diocesan website.

Thank you, Bishop Provanzano. You and others like you make me proud to be an Episcopalian.

PLEASE PRAY FOR KIRSTIN AND ANDEE

Kirstin is experiencing a very bad and painful time of it right now. Please pray for her and for Andee who is caring for her.

Kirstin, may God the Father bless you, God the Son heal you, God the Holy Spirit give you strength. May God the holy and undivided Trinity guard your body, save your soul, and bring you safely to his heavenly country; where he lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.

We pray, O Lord, for those whom you have called to care for Kirstin. Strengthen them by your life-giving Spirit, that by their loving ministries Kirstin may be comforted and her suffering alleviated. Grant, O Lord, your peace that surpasses understanding to Kirstin and her caregivers, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

UPDATE: Ann asks for prayers for the best outcome for her friend who begins medication treatment today for her tumors.

STOP IT!

Tobias Haller says in his comments:

If we would stop trying to "institutionalize" the Spirit, we might get somewhere. Jesus already Incarnated the Body of Christ for us, and all we need to do is stop fighting with each other...

Amen to that!

THE 3 BEARS...NEW VERSION

A far more accurate account of the events of that fateful morning....


Baby bear goes downstairs, sits in his small chair at the table..
He looks into his small bowl. It is empty. 'Who's been eating my porridge?' he squeaks.


Daddy Bear arrives at the big table and sits in his big chair. He looks into his big bowl and it is also empty. 'Who's been eating my porridge?!?' he roars.

Mummy Bear puts her head through the serving hatch from the kitchen and yells, 'For God's sake, how many times do I have to go through this with you idiots? It was Mummy Bear who got up first. It was Mummy Bear who woke everyone in the house. It was Mummy Bear who made the coffee. It was Mummy Bear who unloaded the dishwasher from last night and put everything away. It was Mummy Bear who swept the floor in the kitchen. It was Mummy Bear who went out in the cold early morning air to fetch the newspaper and croissants. It was Mummy Bear who set the damn table.

'It was Mummy Bear who walked the bloody dog, cleaned the cat's litter tray, gave them their food, and refilled their water.

'And now that you've decided to drag your sorry bear-arses downstairs and grace Mummy Bear with your grumpy presence, listen carefully, because I'm only going to say this once....


'I HAVEN'T MADE THE PORRIDGE YET!'



Doug did it.

STILL WORKING IN YOUR 70s AND 80s?

From the Wall Street Journal:

We all think it’s a panacea. If you don’t have enough money saved for retirement, you’ve got a few ways to close the gap between what you have and what you need in your nest egg: Save more, invest more aggressively, and/or work longer.

Well, it turns out that working longer is indeed an option, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute latest study. The only problem is that the latest research shows that you’ll have to work much longer than you anticipated. In fact, many Americans will have to keep on working well into their 70s and 80s to afford retirement, according to the study, titled “The Impact of Deferring Retirement Age on Retirement Income Adequacy.”

What’s more, it’s even worse for low-income workers, according Jack VanDerhei, one of the co-authors of the study. Those who earned (on average over the course of their careers) less than $11,700 per year, the lowest income quartile, would need to defer retirement till age 84 before 90% of those households would have just a 50% chance of affording retirement.

We are blessed that Grandpère has a good pension, since I took 12 years off from the workplace while my children were young. Although I started working part-time at the age of 16, my wages were quite low. When I finished college and graduate school, I earned a small salary compared to today's wages. And even after I went back to work as my children grew older, I never made a great deal of money. Thus, my Social Security income computed from the average of my wages over the years is low enough that I'd be eligible for public assistance, if I were not married to Grandpère. My marriage saves me from poverty.

Some folks never want to quit working, and that's fine for them, but most of us get tired. What of the workers who do hard physical labor, whose bodies wear out, and they lose the ability to do the work?

All but the wealthy face a very different situation today. I most certainly would make different choices from staying out of the workforce for 12 years, and I'd have paid more attention to striving up the ladder of success in order to earn more money.

How brilliant of me to latch on to Grandpère and hang on to him for what will soon be 50 years. As I looked for a good YouTube version of Maurice Chevalier singing "I'm So Glad That I'm Not Young Anymore", I found the song below, which I like better, because it's all about me.




So I went from serious to silly in my post. So sue me.