HOLD ON THERE, ERIC!

Last week, Romney's top campaign adviser said the federal penalty for refusing to get health coverage was exactly that -- a fine, not a tax. This week, Romney said it is a tax because the Supreme Court opinion he opposes declared it a tax.

Confused? So is the Romney campaign, apparently.

The back-and-forth shows the tightrope Romney must walk on the health care reform issue now that he is the certain Republican presidential nominee.

There you have it.  Romney disagrees with his chief adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, (and himself!) about whether the ACA mandate is a tax or a penalty.  One has to be sympathetic to the poor adviser as he makes his way through the thicket of mind-changes by Mitt.  How's a fellow to keep up?

The Wall Street Journal scolded Mitt, and he quickly stepped away from his adviser's characterization of the mandate as a penalty or a fine.  So then, the anti-tax Romney imposed a tax on the people of Massachusetts when he was governor and signed the health care bill into law?

IT IS ALL RIGHT

Bro John Anthony

Faith gives us the power to see life very clearly, to admit that sometimes it seems all wrong and still to know that, somehow, it is all right.

–Br. David Vryhof
Society of Saint John the Evangelist

St Cuthbert's Cottage

LITTLE KNOWN QUOTES FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS

Check out David Atkins at Hullabaloo. Here's one:

James Madison:

There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

There's more, much more at the link. Someone tell the Supremes!

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!

Just to show that I really am patriotic, here's a video of the U S Marine Band playing John Philip Sousa's "The Liberty Bell".  My father was fond of Sousa's marches,  so we grew up listening to them on the old wind-up Victrola and marching around the room in time to the music.



H/T to Counterlight, who reminded me of Sousa's marches.

Holiday card from someecards.com  

DAVID CHILLINGWORTH, PRIMUS OF THE SEC ON THE ANGICAN COVENANT

Bishop David Chillingworth: "You may have seen the article which I provided for the Church Times following the decision of our General Synod not to adopt the Anglican Covenant. Just in case you missed it, here it is."

At our recent General Synod, the Scottish Episcopal Church, decided by a clear majority not to adopt the Anglican Covenant. In 2011, Synod had discussed the Covenant in Indaba session. It was clear then that a decision to adopt was unlikely.

We tried hard to keep the issue open.  I believe that the Anglican Covenant is an honourable attempt to heal our brokenness. But some time ago, as I set out to address yet another meeting in my diocese, I confided to my blog that I was going to listen to the most committed Anglicans on the planet telling me why they didn’t like the Anglican Covenant. Put simply, they believed that the Covenant is un-Anglican.

The Scottish Episcopal Church holds tenaciously to its commitment to the Anglican Communion. I see three reasons for that.

First, it's our size - to a small church, it matters that we belong to something bigger. Then there is a reason which is proprietorial and slightly presumptuous - we invoke the memory of Samuel Seabury, consecrated in 1784 by the Scottish bishops as the first bishop of the church in the United States of America. We like to believe that we were in at the beginning. We want to be part of the bringing to birth of a new phase of Communion life. Finally and more subtly, our particular attitude to authority - rooted in the collegiality of a College of Bishops - finds an echo in the Anglican Communion' aspiration to dispersed rather than centralised authority.

We approached this decision with great care and with some apprehension. We too are a diverse church. We have congregations who see the Anglican Covenant as important and necessary for their security within our church.  This decision has called on our reserves of internal trust. Those congregations needed to know that, whether or not we adopted the Covenant, we intend to take a measured and respectful approach to our diversity. But therein lies the first of the problems. The Covenant addresses what it sees primarily as inter-provincial disagreement. But its effect may actually be to heighten intra-provincial tensions.

Provinces will continue to consider the Covenant and come to their own decisions. The Anglican Communion will continue to seek unity in an astonishing diversity of culture and context across the world. It already has structures and processes through which we build communion life. There are the four Instruments of Communion. There are networks - family, environment and others. There is the Anglican Alliance.  There is Continuing Indaba - for which I serve as Chair of the Reference Group. There are Diocesan Companionship Links.

But we need a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges. We also need to recognise that no single measure can address them all.

The genesis of the Anglican Covenant lay in the Windsor Report - which arose from the development of conflict around issues of human sexuality. In my experience, conflict is almost never 'single issue'. It is a complex of issues which sometimes don't quite match in a directly adversarial way. And the passion with which those conflicts are experienced tells us that other issues are in play. It's about more than the 'presenting question'. Let me suggest two other issues which are part of this.

The first is one to which we are tangentially linked through the Seabury story - it is the legacy of history. The sharp word is colonialism. People assert independence of thought and action more strongly - challenge authority more resolutely - when relationships are shaped and conditioned by the legacy of history. In the Anglican Communion, that history affects interactions between the New World and the old world and between the developed and the developing world. The challenge is to build an Anglican Communion which transcends its history - a post-colonial Communion.

At the Primates Meeting in Dublin last year, I learnt that another of the great diversities of Communion life is in our understanding of authority. A bishop in the Church of England does not exercise authority as we do in Scotland - different again in America and in Nigeria and in Hong Kong. That diversity enriches but it has led to misunderstanding and disappointment in one another.

I believe that a new understanding of the problems we face is needed. By challenging the legacy of history, new axes of relationship will be encouraged. We shall be better able to address the deeply adversarial divisions which gather around the human sexuality issues. Communion grows when we share together in mission, grow together as disciples and act with a self-discipline which is the foundation of unity in diversity.

Our Communion is a gift to the world - a global institution which aspires to exist largely without centralised authority and to celebrate its rich diversity. Such a Communion models things which are important for the world community. Such a Communion is attractive in mission because it has learned to transcend conflict. I believe that we now have a historic opportunity to reshape the Anglican Communion so that it may become an instrument of God's mission to the world in the next generation.

As General Convention of the Episcopal Church begins, and the Anglican Covenant is on the agenda, I thought Bishop David's article was worth posting in its entirety. My hope is that we join the Scottish Episcopal Church, the dioceses in the Church of England, and the House of Bishops in the Anglican Church in the Philippines to vote a firm "no" to adoption of the Anglican Covenant.

MORE ON THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST SEVEN TEC BISHOPS AND TWO MORE

Disciplinary process set to begin on complaints against nine bishops:

[Episcopal News Service] Two complaints apparently have been filed about the involvement of five active bishops and four retired bishops in property litigation in two Episcopal Church dioceses.

Word of the complaints surfaced on various blogs and e-mail lists on June 30. No information about either complaint was released by the Episcopal Church, including the name or names of the complainants.

According to the reports, including an extensive one here, Bishop Clayton Mathews e-mailed two groups of bishops to tell them that he had received complaints against them and that “in the next few weeks” he would begin the disciplinary process as called for in Title IV.6.3-4 of the canons of the Episcopal Church.

It is highly unusual for the existence of a complaint to become public knowledge at this point in the process, regardless the order of the person against whom the complaint is filed.

“As cited in Title IV, disciplinary matters are confidential at this stage,” Episcopal Church Public Affairs Officer Neva Rae Fox told Episcopal News Service July 2. “We are honoring that confidentiality.” (My emphasis)

In one instance, the complaint apparently concerns the fact that seven bishops endorsed an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief prepared by the Anglican Communion Institute, Inc. in the pending appeal of a court ruling involving the Diocese of Fort Worth and the bishop, clergy and laity who broke away from that diocese in November 2008.
The brief objects to the trial court’s ruling that told the dissidents to return “all property, as well as control of the diocesan corporation” to the Episcopal leaders of the diocese.
....

Those named in the Fort Worth complaint are retired Diocese of Texas Bishop Maurice M. Benitez, retired Diocese of Central Florida Bishop John W. Howe, Diocese of Dallas Bishop Suffragan Paul E. Lambert, Diocese of Albany Bishop William H. Love, Diocese of Western Louisiana Bishop D. Bruce MacPherson, Diocese of Springfield Bishop Daniel H. Martins, and Diocese of Dallas Bishop James M. Stanton.

MacPherson is also named in the other complaint, along with retired Diocese of South Carolina Bishop Edward L. Salmon, Jr. and retired Diocese of Springfield Bishop Peter H. Beckwith. Matthews e-mailed them to say that a complaint has been received against them because they signed affidavits opposing to a motion for summary judgment made by representatives of the Diocese of Quincy and the Episcopal Church in the fall of 2011 to secure diocesan financial assets from a group that broke from the diocese in November 2008.

Read the entire article at ENS.

At least we now know that the persons who handle complaints in the Episcopal Church did not make the information public.  I had not previously written about the complaint against the bishops about the affidavits in the Diocese of Quincy because...well, because I have a one-track mind, and I am only one person and can't cover everything.  Now you know.

H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead.

WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH - A SAINT FOR TODAY AND EVERY DAY

Walter Rauschenbusch

Rauschenbusch, a Baptist pastor and theologian, identified “social sins” Christ bore on the Cross: greed combined with political power; militarism; and class contempt.

Loving God, you call us to do justice and love kindness: we thank you for the witness of Walter Rauschenbusch, reformer of society; and we pray that, following his example of faithfulness to the Gospel, we may be ever mindful of the suffering of those who are poor and work diligently for the reform of our communities; through Jesus Christ, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BISHOPS

This post is a sort of clearinghouse for information from other sources on the complaint against the seven bishops who filed the amicus curiae brief in the court appeal concerning property in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.  A friend sent me the link to George Conger at Anglican Ink.  The quote below is said to be from Bishop Matthews' letter:

“As the Intake Officer for the Church, I am obliged to inform you that a complaint has been received against you for your action in filing of Amicus Curiae Brief in the pending appeal in the Supreme Court of Texas in opposition to The Episcopal Diocese of Texas and The Episcopal Church. In the next few weeks, I will initiate a disciplinary process according to Title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church,” Bishop F. Clayton Matthews wrote to the seven bishops.

George Conger did not name his source for the information in the letter.  Note that the quote mentions only "a complaint" and "a disciplinary process", and nothing about "charges".

Thanks to Jim Naughton at The Lead, this morning, I was directed to Bishop Dan Martins' post at his blog Confessions of a Carioca:

I cannot presume to speak for any of the other eight, but I need to be clear that my intention in attaching my name to the amicus brief was in no way to affect the outcome of that case. As the Bishop of Springfield, which is in Illinois, it is no concern of mine how a property dispute in Texas is resolved. If my action has the effect of aiding one side or the other, that is, from my perspective, an immaterial consequence. Rather, I took the action I did with the best interests of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Springfield, as nearly as I can discern them, at heart. My principal concern was to not leave unchallenged the assertion that the Episcopal Church is a unitary hierarchical organism at all levels, and that the dioceses are entirely creatures of General Convention. I viewed signing the amicus brief as consistent with my vow to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church. 

I certainly signed on reluctantly and reservedly. As a matter of general principle, I am opposed to litigating church disputes in secular courts. Lots of scripture passages are challenging to interpret, but I don't think I Corinthians 10 is one of them. "Why not rather be defrauded?", St Paul says. Moreover, I realize how my action could be construed as one bishop interfering in the affairs of a fellow bishop's diocese, which is a big No-No. So I had to make a judgment call, and my judgment, after reflection and prayer, was that I had to join the intervention, because to allow such a false read of TEC polity to potentially help form legal precedent constitutes a danger that could bring harm to the church for decades to come, and resisting this outcome trumps my other concerns.

By signing on to the amicus curiae, Bishop Martins in no way meant to affect the property decision in the Diocese of Fort Worth and had only the best of intentions in his challenge to "the assertion that the Episcopal Church is a unitary hierarchical organism at all levels, and that the dioceses are entirely creatures of General Convention".   Did it never occur to the bishop that the brief might, indeed, affect the outcome of the litigation?  That he could appear to be supporting the cause of the breakaways against his own Episcopal Church?

I wonder why Bishop Martins did not take up the challenge to the hierarchical structure of the church within the channels of the church.  I wonder why he thought to promote "the best interests of the Episcopal Church" by a challenge in a court of law.

In a letter to the people of the Diocese of Albany, Bishop William Love quotes the same words from Bishop Matthews as those quoted above in Anglican Ink and says further:

While Bishop Matthews has informed me that he has received a “complaint,” against me and the other six bishops dealing with our participation in the above mentioned Amicus Curiae Brief, at this point, I have not been officially charged with anything and may not be depending on the outcome of the initial investigation of the “complaint.”

At the appropriate time, I will address my participation in the Amicus Curiae Brief with Bishop Matthews (as the Intake Officer) and others involved.

As I learn more about this situation, I will keep you informed. In the mean time I would ask for your prayers as this situation is resolved.

Again, no one is charged with anything.  A complaint is being investigated.

Commentary from the Anglican Communion Institute:

The sequence of events of the last few days leaves little doubt that these two issues of polity and Title IV were coordinated to coincide with the General Convention that begins this week. It is clear that the Title IV process is being used as a means to enforce a uniformity of thinking on polity that was inconceivable a generation ago. Less clear is whether differences of opinion over polity will be used as an excuse to preserve Title IV overreaches from corrective amendment.

I doubt that Bishop Matthews made public the information on the complaint, so, as to timing, I wonder who gave the information to George Conger and whether whoever released the information in the letter may have wanted to make martyrs of the bishops before GC.

Link to the complete text of the Amicus Curiae.

PROOF THAT HUSBANDS DO LISTEN TO THEIR WIVES

This is a story which is perfectly logical to all males:

A wife asks her husband,

"Could you please go shopping for me and buy a carton of milk,

And if they have eggs, get 6."

A short time later the husband comes back with 6 cartons of milk.

The wife asks him, "Why did you buy 6 cartons of milk?"

He replied, "They had eggs."

(I'm sure you're going back to read it again!)

Yes, Frank, I went back to read the story again.

COME AGAIN, GOVERNOR JINDAL

Those of us who do NOT wish to see Mitt Romney elected can only hope that the national news outlets continue to invite Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as a guest.  Here's Bobby on Meet the Press with David Gregory.

GOV. BOBBY JINDAL:
David, every governor's got two critical decisions to make.  One is do we set up these exchanges.  And, secondly, do we expand Medicaid.  And no, in Louisiana, we're not doing either one of those things.  I don't think it makes sense to do those.  I think it makes more sense to do everything we can to elect Mitt Romney to repeal Obamacare.
....

DAVID GREGORY:
There are a lot of facts and figures there, a lot of charges which are disputed, so I want to try to flow this down and break it down so it's understandable.  Governer [Howard] Dean, on what Governor Jindal is proposing to not do, can you actually explain what the impact of that will be?
....

GOV. HOWARD DEAN:
Let's deal with the exchanges.  First, if you don't put in your own exchange the federal government's going to run one for you.
                                 
DAVID GREGORY:
The exchange is where you would actually go and buy--
                                 
DAVID GREGORY:
--a program.
                                 
GOV. HOWARD DEAN:
To buy health insurance.  So he has a choice.  Bobby has a choice, basically, of having this done for him by the federal government or doing it himself.  So I think that's a no brainer.  But, look, in my state we have had universal healthcare for every kid under 18 for 20 years by an expansion of Medicaid.

In Louisiana, it's 48th in the country in terms of child poverty, 48th in the country in terms of premature death, 48th in the country in terms of industrial accidents and so forth.  Just by expanding Medicaid alone, by accepting the president's Medicaid expansion, 340,000 out of those 860,000 uninsured people get covered.  This is a great deal.

Jindal goes on to say that the unemployment rate in Louisiana is lower than the national average, and the rate is low because of his policies as governor.  Well, I suppose he's entitled to take credit for the low unemployment rate, but it's mainly due to oil and gas company activities.  If Jindal takes credit, he also has to take the blame for the fact that the state is broke, and to maintain the fiction of the mandated balanced budget, he had to cut vital programs in a state that weighs in at the bottom in the good stuff and near the top in all the bad stuff.  Plus, he had to use one-time money to fill the budget gap, money that will not be available next year, so presumably there will be more cuts to vital services.

(VIDEO)
MITT ROMNEY: With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate. That is essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need.
(END OF VIDEO)

DAVID GREGORY:
This is somebody who says, "Let's repeal a law that has the individual mandate at its core."

GOV. BOBBY JINDAL:
Well, I think Paul Ryan made this point very well Friday.  Mitt Romney's always been against the national mandate.  He's always been against Obamacare.  Always said he wanted to repeal it.  Look, states are different.  Founding Fathers intended each state to be a laboratory of experimentation.
....

I come from one the most distinct cultural states in the entire country.  Mardi Gras is great for Louisiana.  May not work as well in Vermont or other states.  The reality is what works in Massachusetts may not be appropriate to another state.  Mitt Romney--
                                 
DAVID GREGORY:
You're really comparing Mardi Gras to universal health insurance?

Ha, ha, ha.  Yes, David, Jindal is doing just that.  Next thing you know, the Obama socialist team will be trying to run the Mardi Gras festivities.  You know...the slippery slope.

Watch the show, or read the entire transcript at the link above, and remember...

In a brief slip of the tongue while discussing the Supreme Court’s health-care ruling, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal invoked the term “Obomney’’ care, a phrase that does Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney no favors.
....

“There’s only one candidate, Gov. Romney, who has committed that he will repeal the Obomney, uh, the Obamacare tax increase,’’ Mr. Jindal said.

Oops.