ETTA JAMES - R. I. P.

'AT LAST'



Etta aged like a fine wine.

'IT'S A MAN'S WORLD'



In younger days, a wonderful song by a fabulous singer. It's still a man's world, but Etta made her mark as one of the greats.

'CHURCH OF ENGLAND REPORTS ON ACNA'

From Thinking Anglicans:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

18. We would, therefore, encourage an open-ended engagement with ACNA on the part of the Church of England and the Communion, while recognising that the outcome is unlikely to be clear for some time yet, especially given the strong feelings on all sides of the debate in North America.

19. The Church of England remains fully committed to the Anglican Communion and to being in communion both with the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church (TEC). In addition, the Synod motion has given Church of England affirmation to the desire of ACNA to remain in some sense within the Anglican famil

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

There you have it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I AM THRILLED!

Every single day, or whenever I want to have another look, even several times a day, I am able to gaze upon the preserved body of Kim Jong Il through the wonders of the internet.

Kim joins a group of illustrious, preserved dictators: Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

From the Washington Post.

PETS!

More thanks to Doug.

STILL MORE ON JEFFREY JOHN

From Martin Reynolds in the comments to the post at Thinking Anglicans titled "Discrimination alleged in the Church of England". (What?! Can it be?! Say it isn't so!) The commentary was posted in several sequences because the number of words in a single comment is limited. I included a question by Colin Coward in the sequence, along with Martin Reynolds' answer.

There was once a Welshman and a Welshman and a Welshman ........

This increasingly acrimonious and hugely damaging story has emerged from where? And this very private letter was released by who and to what effect?

Nowhere can I find a reference to the supposed quote in the Mail on Sunday headline, and as the letter is from a lawyer, when is Jeffrey supposed to have said this? Isn't that rather key information to the story?

And who, on this Commission, would leak a legal letter - surely this is yet another breach aimed at damaging John? Did the last secret enquiry throw up a culprit who revealed the names on the shortlist for Southwark?

What seems to emerge from all this is that these letters changed hands some time ago, after the Southwark fiasco where Rowan was discovered browbeating the Commission members to reject Jeffrey. bullying some to tears.

The legal exchange must be seen in this context, the aftermath of the Southwark fiasco when it now seems clear a conservative evangelical member of the Commission revealed that John and Holtam were on the shortlist - probably the same person who has now revealed this letter. Jeffrey John would have discovered that although clearing with Rowan Williams that he was OK to allow his name to go forward for Southwark he was then stabbed firmly in the back and ruled out. This despite having be assured by Lambeth that a few years after Reading he would be acceptable as a bishop.

Cont.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 3:24pm GMT

So, contrary to George Pitcher's vicious little piece in the Mail, John was not saying "make me a bishop- or else!" ....He was saying: "start telling the truth, or else..." - rather a different way of looking at the facts.

Pitcher's unnecessarily nasty account does, I believe, reveal the Rowanesque spin that Lambeth has put on this whole tawdry affair. An affair that has nothing to do with "gay rights" - Jeffrey has assiduously avoided being "tainted" with any support for LGBT causes and has for ever been willing to tow the CofE party line on gay issues even to the point of giving up sex with his life-long partner! In fact Rowan has a much higher profile as a gay campaigner. But everything to do with - Misleading and duping a rather nice, devoted and faithful Churchman and Christian into believing that what bishops and archbishops say can be believed.

Jeffrey has not once given an interview or acted anyway disloyally to the Church of England - he was right to question what underpinned the appalling treatment his candidacy had in the secret dealing of the Commission - the mauling his supporters had was unsupportable, approaching abuse. That this close questioning of the actions of Rowan Williams - combined with the opprobrium rightly heaped on his shoulders when he forced John to resign from Reading and then failed to acknowledge messages from John rescinding his withdrawl - makes the Archbishop and his staff uncomfortable - indeed uncomfortable enough to attack Jeffrey - is perverse in the extreme.

What we now know is that as soon as Jeffrey (through his lawyers) started to question the actions of the appointment commission then the third Welshman in this miserable joke, the lawyer John Rees sought to justify what had already happened by writing that awful document misnamed a legal opinion claiming gay people had to repent if they wanted preferment.

It was another evil and malicious step from Rowan in his dealings with gay people since he took office.

George Pitcher says that Jeffrey's actions in questioning the duplicity of Lambeth Palace and its occupants would throw the rights of gay people back decades.

George completely fails to see that Jeffrey has never been interested in being a "gay bishop" any more than he has ever had an genuine interest in "gay rights" in the Church - Jeffrey is an advocate for honesty, faithfulness and trusting people at their word - he believes they are the mark of a true Church - that is what he is chasing.

Cont:
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 3:52pm GMT

Jeffrey didn't get Southwark as there was a "better man" - because of Colin Slee we all now know the truth and George Pitcher can't spin that Lambeth Palace line and expect to be believed. That's not what happened.

Now we have ended up with the horrendous "legal opinion" from Welsh lawyer John Rees - I do wonder what the future holds for the Church of England after three three Welshmen have done their worst/best.

George Pitcher mistakes who has been responsible for throwing back the place of gay people in the Church - it is not careful, diligent, cautious, courteous almost obsequious Jeffrey John - it is ambitious and determined Rowan Williams who has savaged us and demeaned us in his failing attempt at keeping the communion united and keeping ecumenical dialogue open. It is cruel, but a common characteristic, that abusers blame their victims.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 4:10pm GMT
....

Martin, the quote in the headline that you open your comment with is 'I'll sue Church of England if it bars me from being bishop' - is that correct?

Your analysis and theory makes perfect sense and fits all the evidence. It explains why people were phoning me on Sunday and Monday in a fruitless chase for inside information, which I certainly don't have. But someone inside Church House or someone with an axe to grind and access to the correspondence certainly would have access.

This places responsibility yet again on the practice and culture inside Church House where devious tactics are being employed to block any progress towards a re-examination on church policy, let alone real change leading to the full inclusion of LGB&T people. It feels a bit like war!
Posted by: Colin Coward on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 6:19pm GMT

Yes Colin, that's the "quote" I can't find except in the headline. Perhaps I missed something?

One does wonder, Colin what the CofE is doing. Take the appointment of Robert Paterson as the chair of the group looking into Civil Partnerships, he was one of only two English bishops to vote AGAINST giving civil partners pension parity.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 6:59pm GMT

In his commentary, Reynolds brings together information which I knew from various sources and includes information of which I was not previously aware. He sheds far more light on the treatment of Jeffrey John by the leadership in the Church of England than any of the press accounts.

Martin Reynolds is a retired south Wales priest who is an adviser to the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement headquartered in the UK.

And I've already been called out for excessive use of exclamation points. So sue me!

UPDATE: The Church Times has further information and commentary on the question of the legality of the actions by the Church of England in barring Jefffrey John from being a bishop.

STORY OF THE DAY - HANGING ON TIGHT

Of course I hang on tight, she said. You
can't believe the kind of stuff that
happens when you let go.

From StoryPeople.

OUR LOT IN LIFE

That is our call in life, servants to our canine and/or feline masters.

Thanks to Doug.

THEY HAVE BABIES!

From Vatican Insider:

The story of a former Anglican priest who converted to Roman Catholicism and thanks to new regulations, can keep his marital bond

How kind that the Vatican does not ask the priests to abandon wife and children.

“Be fruitful and multiply”. There is one man in England who has taken this old biblical call too seriously. His name is Ian Hellyer and together with his wife Margaret is raising not one but nine children. He is also more than well acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, being a Roman Catholic pastor. Yes, that is right, he is both a father and a priest, and yet there is no excommunication on the horizon for him. The story appeared a few days ago in English daily newspaper The Guardian. Beware though, the Fr. Ian affair is no theological trick. The 45 year father of nine was an Anglican priest until last year and following a spiritual journey and a course of study, he decided to convert to Catholicism.

The Rev Hellyer and his wife have done their part to increase and multiply. What about the pope, the cardinals, and the bishops? Why haven't the prelates taken the old biblical call to increase and multiply more seriously and set the example for the flock under their care?

I wish the Hellyers well now that the family is in the right church, and I'm pleased that the authorities in Our Lady of Walsingham ordinariate placed Fr Hellyer as chaplain at Plymouth University and gave the family a five bedroom house in which to live. I'm sure there will be a period of adjustment on both sides.

The article in the Guardian which is mentioned above says:

In the past, Anglican priests who made the switch to Catholicism could only become priests if they weren't married, but two years ago, the Vatican changed the rules and established a new organisation – the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham – into which married Anglican priests could be ordained as Catholics after converting.

Perhaps in England, but not in the US. The Vatican has ordained married Episcopal clergy since 1980.

From the Q&A at EWTN:

Pope John Paul II, through the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a clear although brief statement in June 1980.
....

Finally, concerning married Episcopalian clergy becoming Catholic priests, "the Holy See has specified that this exception to the rule of celibacy is granted in favor of these individual persons, and should not be understood as implying any change in the Church's conviction of the value of priestly celibacy, which will remain the rule for future candidates for the priesthood from this group."

Thanks to Ann V for the link to the Vatican Insider.

NO SOPA/PIPA - CONTACT YOUR REPPRESENTATIVES

Wikipedia is blacked out today, and I miss them. Click here to learn about the blackout and for contact information on your representatives.

Watch the video.

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

H/Y to Ann Fontaine fore the video.

'DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY'

In her latest novel, P. D. James carries forward the story of Elizabeth and Darcy six years into their life together after their marriage in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. And, of course, since James is a writer of mysteries, the tale includes a murder. James writes in the style of the late 18th/early 19th century, but, of course, she does not write like Jane Austen. No one writes like Jane Austen. Her sparkling wit, her great gift for creating comic characters and writing dialogue, the thread of irony that runs through all her work...no one can duplicate, and I'm quite certain the object of James' effort was not to copy, but was rather to write an homage to Jane, whose books she greatly admires.

While largely remaining faithful to the characters as Austen created them, James cleverly takes them through rather surprising twists and turns as she continues their story. The book was an enjoyable read, but, in the end, P D James, writing in the style of the turn of the 18th to the 19th century is not James writing at her best. I've read all of her mystery novels, and I think she ranks amongst the best, thus my mild disappointment. At one point, the author hit a real clinker with the word 'lifestyle', which I was pretty certain was not in use in the period in which the mystery is set. It turns out I was right: the first known use of the word dates to 1929.

Since I don't want to write a spoiler review, I won't say more, except that James held me in suspense with the identity of the murderer until the mystery was solved, taking me completely by surprise. Never would I have thought...