This past week, I expressed the prayerful hope that the Primates would just say “no” to ++Rowan Williams’ plans to indaba them. It appears that the Primate of the Southern Cone, Gregory Venables is of a mind to do just that. And he’s not alone.
Bishop Venables said he and several other primates’ council members have additional concerns about the format of the primates’ meeting as proposed by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in his post-Lambeth pastoral letter to bishops. The proposal to include indaba small-group discussion was a particular concern, Bishop Venables added.
“I think it is up to the primates to decide how they are going to do things,” he said. “I don’t think we can be told ahead of time what type of meeting we are going to have, or how we are going to talk.”
Uh, Dr. Williams, if you thought you were going to turn the Primates’ Meeting into a big indaba, you might want to think again.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Obama Disses Small Towns . . . Again.
The people in the Obama campaign must have taken some stupid pills before issuing this response to McCain picking Sarah Palin as his running mate:
Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies — that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same.
Leaving aside that Palin has actually taken on big oil companies as Governor of Alaska, to once again diss small towns is just stupid. Have they forgotten the grief Obama got over this?
Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies — that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same.
Leaving aside that Palin has actually taken on big oil companies as Governor of Alaska, to once again diss small towns is just stupid. Have they forgotten the grief Obama got over this?
Straight Talk from the GAFCON Primates’ Council
There wasn’t much attention paid to it, but the GAFCON Primates’ Council met in London earlier this month. Now, a communiqué from said council is out.
The straight talk of the communiqué is refreshing. And the Primates exhibit a great degree of clarity in evaluating the current situation:
We maintain that three new facts of the Anglican Communion must be faced. We are past the time when they can be reversed.
First, some Anglicans have sanctified sinful practices and will continue to do so whatever others may think. Second, churches and even dioceses affected by this disobedience have rightly withdrawn fellowship while wishing to remain authentic Anglicans. So-called 'border-crossing' is another way of describing the provision of recognition and care for those who have been faithful to the teachings of Holy Scripture. Third, there is widespread impaired and broken sacramental communion amongst Anglicans with far-reaching global implications. The hope that we may somehow return to the state of affairs before 2003 is an illusion.
Any sound strategy must accommodate itself to these facts.
They see the urgency of providing for faithful distressed Anglicans in North America:
. . . the Council and its Advisory Board will seek to deal with the problems of those who have confessed the biblical faith in the face of hostility and found the need on grounds of conscience and in matters of great significance to break the normal bonds of fellowship in the name of the gospel. For the sake of the Anglican Communion this is an effort to bring order out of the chaos of the present time and to make sure as far as possible that some of the most faithful Anglican Christians are not lost to the Communion. It is expected that priority will be given to the possible formation of a province in North America for the Common Cause Partnership.
The contrast with the current Archbishop of Canterbury is striking. He seems to care little that Anglicanism is losing orthodox faithful by the droves. And instead of providing for the orthodox, he strings them along. The Primates themselves recognize this policy of delay (though they, being more polite than me, don’t directly accuse ++Rowan of it):
Indeed, delay itself seems to be a strategy employed by some in order to resolve the issue through weariness.
Thanks be to God that the GAFCON Primates have the backbone to be done with such delay and to move forward.
The straight talk of the communiqué is refreshing. And the Primates exhibit a great degree of clarity in evaluating the current situation:
We maintain that three new facts of the Anglican Communion must be faced. We are past the time when they can be reversed.
First, some Anglicans have sanctified sinful practices and will continue to do so whatever others may think. Second, churches and even dioceses affected by this disobedience have rightly withdrawn fellowship while wishing to remain authentic Anglicans. So-called 'border-crossing' is another way of describing the provision of recognition and care for those who have been faithful to the teachings of Holy Scripture. Third, there is widespread impaired and broken sacramental communion amongst Anglicans with far-reaching global implications. The hope that we may somehow return to the state of affairs before 2003 is an illusion.
Any sound strategy must accommodate itself to these facts.
They see the urgency of providing for faithful distressed Anglicans in North America:
. . . the Council and its Advisory Board will seek to deal with the problems of those who have confessed the biblical faith in the face of hostility and found the need on grounds of conscience and in matters of great significance to break the normal bonds of fellowship in the name of the gospel. For the sake of the Anglican Communion this is an effort to bring order out of the chaos of the present time and to make sure as far as possible that some of the most faithful Anglican Christians are not lost to the Communion. It is expected that priority will be given to the possible formation of a province in North America for the Common Cause Partnership.
The contrast with the current Archbishop of Canterbury is striking. He seems to care little that Anglicanism is losing orthodox faithful by the droves. And instead of providing for the orthodox, he strings them along. The Primates themselves recognize this policy of delay (though they, being more polite than me, don’t directly accuse ++Rowan of it):
Indeed, delay itself seems to be a strategy employed by some in order to resolve the issue through weariness.
Thanks be to God that the GAFCON Primates have the backbone to be done with such delay and to move forward.
English Anglo-Catholics, Beware of Crossing the Tiber
Recently, I’ve lamented that the default option for many Anglo-Catholics is Rome. Those who are so minded, particularly in England, had best take a closer look at the Roman Catholic Church in England.
To say that the English RC Church is inhospitable to traditionalists would be an understatement. Its bishops willfully undermine Pope Benedict’s bringing back the Latin Mass. Sordid liberals have been running the show for decades and likely will for years to come. Even worse, as Damian Thompson has been documenting, if a bishop doesn’t like your parish because you’re too traditionalist for his tastes, he just may shut you down. And he may be so underhanded in how he goes about that, it would make even an Episcopalian blush.
If the bishop chooses not to go quite that far but doesn’t like the way you say mass, he can just tell you to stop.
Combine these abuses of episcopal power with the fact that some English RC bishops are not at all well disposed toward Anglo-Catholics . . . . Well, cross the Tiber at your own risk. Who’s to say your traditional parish won’t be arbitrarily closed or your priest muzzled?
To say that the English RC Church is inhospitable to traditionalists would be an understatement. Its bishops willfully undermine Pope Benedict’s bringing back the Latin Mass. Sordid liberals have been running the show for decades and likely will for years to come. Even worse, as Damian Thompson has been documenting, if a bishop doesn’t like your parish because you’re too traditionalist for his tastes, he just may shut you down. And he may be so underhanded in how he goes about that, it would make even an Episcopalian blush.
If the bishop chooses not to go quite that far but doesn’t like the way you say mass, he can just tell you to stop.
Combine these abuses of episcopal power with the fact that some English RC bishops are not at all well disposed toward Anglo-Catholics . . . . Well, cross the Tiber at your own risk. Who’s to say your traditional parish won’t be arbitrarily closed or your priest muzzled?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
A Post-DNC Prediction
It’s late, and I need to get to bed. But, having watched Obama’s acceptance speech, I’ll say this: Don’t be shocked if he gets very little of the usual post-convention bump in the next polls.
I may say more in the morning.
I may say more in the morning.
The “Mainstream” News Media is a Joke.
Last night, I did what I rarely do. I watched the NBC Nightly News. I was curious to see what they would say about the Democrat convention.
That is, I watched it until the middle of an oh-so-soft interview of Michelle Obama. I had to turn it off, it was so vomitous.
You have a 30 minute national newscast and you spend a big chunk of it with a puff interview with a candidate’s wife? What inexcusably bad news judgement.
No wonder blogs have become so important in conveying news. There was a BIG vacuum to fill.
That is, I watched it until the middle of an oh-so-soft interview of Michelle Obama. I had to turn it off, it was so vomitous.
You have a 30 minute national newscast and you spend a big chunk of it with a puff interview with a candidate’s wife? What inexcusably bad news judgement.
No wonder blogs have become so important in conveying news. There was a BIG vacuum to fill.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Obama’s Friends (and Free Speech) UPDATED
This week at the Democrat Convention, Barack Obama will surely be portrayed as a mainstream All-American.
And it will be utter cow manure.
It’s not for nothing that I have persistently called him out for the Leftist he is. If there are any doubts in your mind about that, then I kindly suggest you read up on the sordid company he has kept. Here, here and here would be a good start.
MORE: Word is getting out on Obama’s relationship with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers. The Obama campaign’s response? To try to muzzle free speech, particularly this ad.
The Obama campaign’s rejoinder is three-pronged: The first shot was an Obama response ad, which fails to offer any substantive explanation of why Obama maintains ties to Ayers. Obama’s second move was to launch a heavy-handed effort to pressure television stations into rejecting the ad by promising financial retaliation against the stations and their advertisers — which effort has apparently succeeded in intimidating Fox and CNN. The capper is a desperate call for the Justice Department to muzzle political speech through the prospect of a criminal investigation — a demand that provides a disturbing sneak peak into what life would be like under an Obama Justice Department.
Said actions of the Obama campaign beg the question: do we really want a Leftist Gulag U.S.?
STILL MORE: Michelle Malkin, among many other bloggers, is following the Obama-Ayers matter closely, particularly Obama’s attack on free speech .
The target of his attack, the American Issues Project, is fighting back. Good on them!
And it will be utter cow manure.
It’s not for nothing that I have persistently called him out for the Leftist he is. If there are any doubts in your mind about that, then I kindly suggest you read up on the sordid company he has kept. Here, here and here would be a good start.
MORE: Word is getting out on Obama’s relationship with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers. The Obama campaign’s response? To try to muzzle free speech, particularly this ad.
The Obama campaign’s rejoinder is three-pronged: The first shot was an Obama response ad, which fails to offer any substantive explanation of why Obama maintains ties to Ayers. Obama’s second move was to launch a heavy-handed effort to pressure television stations into rejecting the ad by promising financial retaliation against the stations and their advertisers — which effort has apparently succeeded in intimidating Fox and CNN. The capper is a desperate call for the Justice Department to muzzle political speech through the prospect of a criminal investigation — a demand that provides a disturbing sneak peak into what life would be like under an Obama Justice Department.
Said actions of the Obama campaign beg the question: do we really want a Leftist Gulag U.S.?
STILL MORE: Michelle Malkin, among many other bloggers, is following the Obama-Ayers matter closely, particularly Obama’s attack on free speech .
The target of his attack, the American Issues Project, is fighting back. Good on them!
Just Say “No!” to Indaba
++Rowan Williams intends to foist his Indaba format on the Primates and Anglican Consultative Council. His reasoning? The following snippet tells all.
. . . the Indaba method, while not designed to achieve final decisions . . .
Exactly. Except if he was completely honest, ++Rowan would have changed the order of the words slightly and said “the Indaba method, while designed not to achieve final decisions. . . .” The last thing Rowan wants now is “final decisions.” His method of operation since 2003 has been to string the orthodox along and to let the apostates off the hook. Indaba is a part of that.
I hope and pray the Primates have the backbone to say “No” to Indaba and the rest of Rowan’s not-so-hidden agenda of enabling the apostates.
----
Hat tip to Stand Firm.
. . . the Indaba method, while not designed to achieve final decisions . . .
Exactly. Except if he was completely honest, ++Rowan would have changed the order of the words slightly and said “the Indaba method, while designed not to achieve final decisions. . . .” The last thing Rowan wants now is “final decisions.” His method of operation since 2003 has been to string the orthodox along and to let the apostates off the hook. Indaba is a part of that.
I hope and pray the Primates have the backbone to say “No” to Indaba and the rest of Rowan’s not-so-hidden agenda of enabling the apostates.
----
Hat tip to Stand Firm.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Look Who’s Coming to Town!
I was amused to find out about certain visitors coming to my turf:
The [Windsor Continuation Group], which includes West Texas Bishop Gary Lillibridge, is next scheduled to meet in private session at the Diocese of West Texas’ Mustang Island Conference Center in Corpus Christi Dec. 15-19.
The conference center is on the beach about 20 minutes from here. I drive by there frequently. This news makes me wish I could be one of those sand colored lizards that frequent the dunes so I could sneak in their private meeting.
But that is not possible. So I ask my kind and hopefully devious readers – any ideas for scams to get into the WCG meeting?
The [Windsor Continuation Group], which includes West Texas Bishop Gary Lillibridge, is next scheduled to meet in private session at the Diocese of West Texas’ Mustang Island Conference Center in Corpus Christi Dec. 15-19.
The conference center is on the beach about 20 minutes from here. I drive by there frequently. This news makes me wish I could be one of those sand colored lizards that frequent the dunes so I could sneak in their private meeting.
But that is not possible. So I ask my kind and hopefully devious readers – any ideas for scams to get into the WCG meeting?
Monday, August 25, 2008
Oxford A Year Later
Almost exactly a year ago, I was getting ready to go to the airport to fly to England to study at Oxford. I still remember the excitement of arriving in then exploring Oxford on a pleasant late summer afternoon.
The Autumn there had its dark times with its quickly shortening days, academic stress, and exhaustion. But I’m very glad I went. It was an enriching time with good memories to last a lifetime. And, yes, it greatly furthered my education.
At the same time, I’m glad I went a year ago and not today. A big part of the attraction of Oxford was to worship there, especially to go to choral evensong every day after studies. Yes, I knew that neither Oxford nor England was a bastion of orthodoxy. But I felt it wasn’t off the deep end either and that the Church of England knew how to worship, especially in Oxford. And for that, the CofE and Oxford had my deep respect. And I still feel Oxford knows how to worship, particularly at New College and Pusey House. The times I spent there were wonderful.
But if I were to go to Oxford today, I would go with that respect greatly diminished and with a deep sense of sadness.
The main reason is the recent Church of England Synod. I am still appalled that it chose to give no adequate provision for objectors to women bishops. This was something I would expect out of the Episcopal Church, not the Church of England. For all its faults, I thought the “broad church” of the CofE was broad enough to provide adequate space for traditionalists. At least as far as the Synod is concerned, I and many others thought wrong. (There is still some hope that Synod’s actions will be undone.)
So today were I to go to most of my Church of England destinations of a year ago, it would be hard for me to drum up the respect of a year ago for what has become such an illiberal institution. The difficulty of worshipping under that circumstance is obvious. And I would go even to Pusey House with a deep sense of sadness, seeing that its days as an Anglican institution may be numbered. A year ago, it became an oasis where I could take communion. After I became fed up with ++Rowan, it was about the only place. But will that become impossible in the future? It will if Pusey House goes to Rome. And they may soon feel they have nowhere else to go, which would be sad indeed. (I hope my pessimism is mistaken. And I should state I’m not in close communication with Pusey House at this time.)
Some may feel my feelings are a bit overdone to come from one act of Synod. Others may feel I was naïve about the Church of England a year ago. That may very well be so. In any case, I’m glad I went to Oxford a year ago with overall good feelings towards the Church of England. For those good feelings have sadly waned since. And the nagging feeling that the days are numbered for the glory I experienced a year ago have increased.
The Autumn there had its dark times with its quickly shortening days, academic stress, and exhaustion. But I’m very glad I went. It was an enriching time with good memories to last a lifetime. And, yes, it greatly furthered my education.
At the same time, I’m glad I went a year ago and not today. A big part of the attraction of Oxford was to worship there, especially to go to choral evensong every day after studies. Yes, I knew that neither Oxford nor England was a bastion of orthodoxy. But I felt it wasn’t off the deep end either and that the Church of England knew how to worship, especially in Oxford. And for that, the CofE and Oxford had my deep respect. And I still feel Oxford knows how to worship, particularly at New College and Pusey House. The times I spent there were wonderful.
But if I were to go to Oxford today, I would go with that respect greatly diminished and with a deep sense of sadness.
The main reason is the recent Church of England Synod. I am still appalled that it chose to give no adequate provision for objectors to women bishops. This was something I would expect out of the Episcopal Church, not the Church of England. For all its faults, I thought the “broad church” of the CofE was broad enough to provide adequate space for traditionalists. At least as far as the Synod is concerned, I and many others thought wrong. (There is still some hope that Synod’s actions will be undone.)
So today were I to go to most of my Church of England destinations of a year ago, it would be hard for me to drum up the respect of a year ago for what has become such an illiberal institution. The difficulty of worshipping under that circumstance is obvious. And I would go even to Pusey House with a deep sense of sadness, seeing that its days as an Anglican institution may be numbered. A year ago, it became an oasis where I could take communion. After I became fed up with ++Rowan, it was about the only place. But will that become impossible in the future? It will if Pusey House goes to Rome. And they may soon feel they have nowhere else to go, which would be sad indeed. (I hope my pessimism is mistaken. And I should state I’m not in close communication with Pusey House at this time.)
Some may feel my feelings are a bit overdone to come from one act of Synod. Others may feel I was naïve about the Church of England a year ago. That may very well be so. In any case, I’m glad I went to Oxford a year ago with overall good feelings towards the Church of England. For those good feelings have sadly waned since. And the nagging feeling that the days are numbered for the glory I experienced a year ago have increased.
+David Anderson on Lambeth and Border Crossings
Bishop David Anderson is such a straight talker it brings into question his qualifications to be an Anglican bishop. Seriously though, I appreciate his ability to tell it like it is.
He certainly does so in talking about Lambeth and its absurd proposal on border crossings. After discussing Bishop Duncan’s leaked letter to Bishop Lillibridge, +Anderson continues:
One of the items that Bishop Duncan wished to protest was the treatment of border crossings as the moral equivalence of same sex marriages and gay bishops, a stance that previous Primates’ Meetings refused to take. This new equivalence represents a steep moral decline on the part of the Lambeth leadership, and is further underlined by the thought that the orthodox Anglicans who have left, let me say it again, WHO HAVE LEFT the Episcopal Church, would EVER go back into the toxic theological quagmire of heterodoxy that is the leadership of TEC. We are not going into any holding bay; we are the victims and Lambeth is thinking of sending the abused back to the abuser rather than punish the abuser.
I couldn’t have said it better myself in describing how absurd and utterly bankrupt the Lambeth proposal is.
He certainly does so in talking about Lambeth and its absurd proposal on border crossings. After discussing Bishop Duncan’s leaked letter to Bishop Lillibridge, +Anderson continues:
One of the items that Bishop Duncan wished to protest was the treatment of border crossings as the moral equivalence of same sex marriages and gay bishops, a stance that previous Primates’ Meetings refused to take. This new equivalence represents a steep moral decline on the part of the Lambeth leadership, and is further underlined by the thought that the orthodox Anglicans who have left, let me say it again, WHO HAVE LEFT the Episcopal Church, would EVER go back into the toxic theological quagmire of heterodoxy that is the leadership of TEC. We are not going into any holding bay; we are the victims and Lambeth is thinking of sending the abused back to the abuser rather than punish the abuser.
I couldn’t have said it better myself in describing how absurd and utterly bankrupt the Lambeth proposal is.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Joe Biden: A Wonderfully Bad Choice for Veep
I’m heartened to see that Barack Obama has chosen Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate. For I think this is bad tactical decision, wonderfully bad for those, like myself, rooting against Obama.
Biden has no constituency outside of Delaware as shown by his absurd runs for the presidency. He’ll bring almost no one on board the Messiah Train.
Worse, he has a long history of not shutting up, of self-destructive verbal gaffes. In fact, I advise prayer for him that he doesn’t commit one until after he’s nominated for Veep at the Democrat Convention. And I predict he’ll have a verbal gaffe during the campaign that will hurt Obama. You heard it here first.
Further, he’s a pro-abortion Catholic. That sort of hypocrisy and unfaithfulness rubs a lot of the electorate the wrong way. Cramner has an interesting take on this. And it will bring more attention to the abortion issue – a weak issue for Obama given his radical record on the subject that can only be characterized as pro-infanticide.
So I think Obama picking Joe Biden is indeed a wonderfully self-destructive decision. I suspect that one day in illustrated Bibles, beside verses saying evil men fall into pits that they themselves dig, will be a photo of Barack Obama presenting Joe Biden as his running mate.
Biden has no constituency outside of Delaware as shown by his absurd runs for the presidency. He’ll bring almost no one on board the Messiah Train.
Worse, he has a long history of not shutting up, of self-destructive verbal gaffes. In fact, I advise prayer for him that he doesn’t commit one until after he’s nominated for Veep at the Democrat Convention. And I predict he’ll have a verbal gaffe during the campaign that will hurt Obama. You heard it here first.
Further, he’s a pro-abortion Catholic. That sort of hypocrisy and unfaithfulness rubs a lot of the electorate the wrong way. Cramner has an interesting take on this. And it will bring more attention to the abortion issue – a weak issue for Obama given his radical record on the subject that can only be characterized as pro-infanticide.
So I think Obama picking Joe Biden is indeed a wonderfully self-destructive decision. I suspect that one day in illustrated Bibles, beside verses saying evil men fall into pits that they themselves dig, will be a photo of Barack Obama presenting Joe Biden as his running mate.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Who’s Lying, Obama?
Barack Obama and his campaign doesn’t like it that word is getting around, without much help from the Liberal News Media, of course, that he repeatedly voted down a bill to protect babies born alive after abortions. So he and his campaign have called those exposing his record (And that would include me.) liars:
The recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama — the proud father of two little girls — and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting.* There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.
It’s fun to watch Obama and his campaign wiggle and squirm on this. But, there’s no getting around it – as Illinois state senator, he repeatedly voted against legal protection for babies born alive.
And, to avoid any confusion, we’re not talking about a Partial Birth Abortion bill. Obama very much opposes stopping PBA, and that’s bad enough. But we’re talking about babies born alive. It’s not for nothing that I’ve called the man a baby killer.
Now, it seems he’s a lying baby killer .
The only real question is whether the news media continues to give him a pass on this as they have on his leftist record as a whole. I think they will.
But word is getting out anyway, and it’s yet one more crack in the façade of his Messiahship. And the Messiah doesn’t like it.
The recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama — the proud father of two little girls — and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting.* There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.
It’s fun to watch Obama and his campaign wiggle and squirm on this. But, there’s no getting around it – as Illinois state senator, he repeatedly voted against legal protection for babies born alive.
And, to avoid any confusion, we’re not talking about a Partial Birth Abortion bill. Obama very much opposes stopping PBA, and that’s bad enough. But we’re talking about babies born alive. It’s not for nothing that I’ve called the man a baby killer.
Now, it seems he’s a lying baby killer .
The only real question is whether the news media continues to give him a pass on this as they have on his leftist record as a whole. I think they will.
But word is getting out anyway, and it’s yet one more crack in the façade of his Messiahship. And the Messiah doesn’t like it.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
About Those Olympic Protest Parks
Chinese authorities said there were going to allow protest at the Olympics . . . at “protest parks” miles away from the actual Olympic venues.
But it seems even that feeble promise was a lie. The police say they have received 77 applications to protest at the parks. None have been approved.
Instead two applicants have been rewarded with a sentence of one year of “re-education through labor.” They are two ladies aged 77 and 79.
On a lighter note, here’s a humorous animated commentary on life in China.
But it seems even that feeble promise was a lie. The police say they have received 77 applications to protest at the parks. None have been approved.
Instead two applicants have been rewarded with a sentence of one year of “re-education through labor.” They are two ladies aged 77 and 79.
On a lighter note, here’s a humorous animated commentary on life in China.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Welcome to the Hotel Gulag California
Freedom takes yet another hit. Thanks to the California Supreme Court and an incredibly ungrateful, self-centered lesbian, California fertility doctors are now required to help lesbians to have babies without the services of a man. If that goes against the conscience of the doctor, too bad!
In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections and Benitez has since given birth to three children.
Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group.
And I pointedly am including Ms. Benitez in the blame for this violation of conscience and freedom. Those doctors helped her out as much as their consciences allowed. For what they couldn’t do, they referred her to another doctor. And since she has given birth to three children, she obviously got served fully, and it worked out well for her. (Whether it works out well for her unfortunate children is another matter.)
But that wasn’t good enough for her. Her priceless feelings were more important than the freedom and conscience of the doctors who treated her with professionalism and grace. So much so that she sued them to take their freedom away.
Any sensible court wouldn’t even hear such a suit, seeing that the only damage is to her oh-so-precious feelings. And I doubt even that damage. This smells of leftist activists with chips on their shoulders, looking for an excuse to sue to take away more freedoms from Christians. Actually, it’s more than just a smell. Ms. Benitez’s lawyer is one Jennifer C. Pizer.
And, of course, the California Supreme Court rewards them fully. And freedom shrinks more and more.
-----
MORE: Andrew McCarthy puts the ruling under rigorous criticism. Then he concludes:
California has thousands upon thousands of medical practitioners. The doctors in this case were not seeking to ban in-vitro fertilization for gay couples. They were simply saying, “Don’t make me do it.”
What they want is freedom: freedom to hold their convictions just as gay couples are free to hold theirs. Freedom to depart from a secular-belief system tyrannically imposed by government — governments having been known to impose any number of beliefs deemed de rigueur at the time . . . and remembered now only for their close-minded noxiousness.
In modern America, plenty of room has been made for gay couples and their life choices. We needn’t vanquish religious believers to make those accommodations. Trying to do so, as California is, will not result in harmony and societal progress. It will add to the campaign of political correctness slowly and needlessly tearing the nation asunder.
In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections and Benitez has since given birth to three children.
Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group.
And I pointedly am including Ms. Benitez in the blame for this violation of conscience and freedom. Those doctors helped her out as much as their consciences allowed. For what they couldn’t do, they referred her to another doctor. And since she has given birth to three children, she obviously got served fully, and it worked out well for her. (Whether it works out well for her unfortunate children is another matter.)
But that wasn’t good enough for her. Her priceless feelings were more important than the freedom and conscience of the doctors who treated her with professionalism and grace. So much so that she sued them to take their freedom away.
Any sensible court wouldn’t even hear such a suit, seeing that the only damage is to her oh-so-precious feelings. And I doubt even that damage. This smells of leftist activists with chips on their shoulders, looking for an excuse to sue to take away more freedoms from Christians. Actually, it’s more than just a smell. Ms. Benitez’s lawyer is one Jennifer C. Pizer.
And, of course, the California Supreme Court rewards them fully. And freedom shrinks more and more.
-----
MORE: Andrew McCarthy puts the ruling under rigorous criticism. Then he concludes:
California has thousands upon thousands of medical practitioners. The doctors in this case were not seeking to ban in-vitro fertilization for gay couples. They were simply saying, “Don’t make me do it.”
What they want is freedom: freedom to hold their convictions just as gay couples are free to hold theirs. Freedom to depart from a secular-belief system tyrannically imposed by government — governments having been known to impose any number of beliefs deemed de rigueur at the time . . . and remembered now only for their close-minded noxiousness.
In modern America, plenty of room has been made for gay couples and their life choices. We needn’t vanquish religious believers to make those accommodations. Trying to do so, as California is, will not result in harmony and societal progress. It will add to the campaign of political correctness slowly and needlessly tearing the nation asunder.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Will the Episcopal Church “Sacrifice” Its Place in the Anglican Communion?
There’s been more than a little talk about the possibility and advisability of The Episcopal Church making itself a “sacrifice” by voluntarily withdrawing from the councils of the Anglican Communion so it can pursue its inclusive “gospel” unhindered.
I hate to put a damper on things – I really do – but it ain’t gonna happen. The current Archbishop of Canterbury isn’t going to discipline The Episcopal Church and TEC knows it. Further, although I hope and pray otherwise, that any future Archbishop of Canterbury will have the guts to discipline The Episcopal Church is unlikely. The Anglican Communion, as currently led, is instead an enabler. Those in willful sin love enablers. So why should TEC want to leave, even partly so, the big enabling Anglican Communion?
Further, The Episcopal Church doesn’t have the class to pull back from the councils of the Anglican Communion. We’re talking about leaders who’d rather sue departing churches rather than negotiate in good faith towards settlements. We’re talking about a church that refuses to recognize the transfer of priests to orthodox Anglican jurisdictions, but instead deposes them. We’re talking about a church in which disenfranchising those who don’t put out the money to the national denomination is being seriously considered.
Now I have to admit that this proposal from an Episcopal priest has quite a degree of class. Does PB Schori, “Bishop” Chane et al have that much class?
Do I really have to ask that question?
I hate to put a damper on things – I really do – but it ain’t gonna happen. The current Archbishop of Canterbury isn’t going to discipline The Episcopal Church and TEC knows it. Further, although I hope and pray otherwise, that any future Archbishop of Canterbury will have the guts to discipline The Episcopal Church is unlikely. The Anglican Communion, as currently led, is instead an enabler. Those in willful sin love enablers. So why should TEC want to leave, even partly so, the big enabling Anglican Communion?
Further, The Episcopal Church doesn’t have the class to pull back from the councils of the Anglican Communion. We’re talking about leaders who’d rather sue departing churches rather than negotiate in good faith towards settlements. We’re talking about a church that refuses to recognize the transfer of priests to orthodox Anglican jurisdictions, but instead deposes them. We’re talking about a church in which disenfranchising those who don’t put out the money to the national denomination is being seriously considered.
Now I have to admit that this proposal from an Episcopal priest has quite a degree of class. Does PB Schori, “Bishop” Chane et al have that much class?
Do I really have to ask that question?
Friday, August 15, 2008
On Anglo-Catholics and Rome
I at times take issue with Fr. Robert Hart. And I’m usually very well disposed towards the good men of the Diocese of Ft. Worth. But I heartily agree with Fr. Hart’s commentary on the “Eight Useful Findings” of some of those Ft. Worth men. That is indeed a most unfortunate document, to be polite.
The efforts of these Ft. Worth priests to have their diocese join Rome reminds me of how perplexed I can be at how eager some Anglo-Catholics can be to ditch their Anglican brethren and join Rome.
Now I know that sounds harsh. But a large part of my annoyance is that I really want Anglo-Caths to stick around. When I was in Oxford, the only place I could conscientiously take communion after the first month or so was Pusey House. My favorite place to worship in the Dallas area is Smokey Matt’s. And I could go on. Anglicanism and the church as a whole just wouldn’t be the same without a vibrant Anglo-Catholic presence. So in recent years, I’ve been distressed to see that the default option for Anglo-Caths who have had it with the enormities in the Anglican Communion too often is Rome. Heck, they sometimes act as if continuing Anglicanism doesn’t exist.
I can understand that somewhat better than I once did. After all, these are catholics (And I consider myself small “c” catholic.) They put a high priority with unity in and with the church, both past and present.
But they seem not to give much weight to that, when they join Rome, they are cutting themselves off from much of the catholic church, including all Anglicans. I cherished receiving communion from Bishop Iker and his priests and from Pusey House. Isn’t that unity valuable as well? But if either join Rome, that is gone. The Diocese of Ft. Worth has excellent relationships with lower church Anglicans, including the Province of the Southern Cone, GAFCON and the REC. Is it good for unity for those to be tossed aside?
Then there is the question of deserting Anglicanism itself. Is not traditional Anglicanism worth saving? There are still people out there (And I am one.) who cannot conscientiously join Rome, but who also cannot endure the sloppy “worship” and “theology” of most of Protestantism. Traditional Anglicanism is the ideal ship for many of them. Should that ship be abandoned?
I love and value my Anglo-Catholic friends. But the tendency of many of them to flee to Rome frustrates me. When they so flee, it diminishes Anglicanism and the church as a whole (even it does the RC church good . . . for a time). I do pray those with that tendency would reconsider.
The efforts of these Ft. Worth priests to have their diocese join Rome reminds me of how perplexed I can be at how eager some Anglo-Catholics can be to ditch their Anglican brethren and join Rome.
Now I know that sounds harsh. But a large part of my annoyance is that I really want Anglo-Caths to stick around. When I was in Oxford, the only place I could conscientiously take communion after the first month or so was Pusey House. My favorite place to worship in the Dallas area is Smokey Matt’s. And I could go on. Anglicanism and the church as a whole just wouldn’t be the same without a vibrant Anglo-Catholic presence. So in recent years, I’ve been distressed to see that the default option for Anglo-Caths who have had it with the enormities in the Anglican Communion too often is Rome. Heck, they sometimes act as if continuing Anglicanism doesn’t exist.
I can understand that somewhat better than I once did. After all, these are catholics (And I consider myself small “c” catholic.) They put a high priority with unity in and with the church, both past and present.
But they seem not to give much weight to that, when they join Rome, they are cutting themselves off from much of the catholic church, including all Anglicans. I cherished receiving communion from Bishop Iker and his priests and from Pusey House. Isn’t that unity valuable as well? But if either join Rome, that is gone. The Diocese of Ft. Worth has excellent relationships with lower church Anglicans, including the Province of the Southern Cone, GAFCON and the REC. Is it good for unity for those to be tossed aside?
Then there is the question of deserting Anglicanism itself. Is not traditional Anglicanism worth saving? There are still people out there (And I am one.) who cannot conscientiously join Rome, but who also cannot endure the sloppy “worship” and “theology” of most of Protestantism. Traditional Anglicanism is the ideal ship for many of them. Should that ship be abandoned?
I love and value my Anglo-Catholic friends. But the tendency of many of them to flee to Rome frustrates me. When they so flee, it diminishes Anglicanism and the church as a whole (even it does the RC church good . . . for a time). I do pray those with that tendency would reconsider.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Falls Church and Wikipedia
The Falls Church Wikipedia page is a good, instructive, and at times humorous example of how some attempt to manipulate Wikipedia.
In the latest edit, I particularly like how those wishing to remain in the Episcopal Church were “forced” out on the street, but now have “a gifted preacher and faithful priest” . . . who apparently found the time in the midst of all that faithfulness to supply – you guessed it – the latest edit to that Wikipedia page. :^)
More comments may be found here.
In the latest edit, I particularly like how those wishing to remain in the Episcopal Church were “forced” out on the street, but now have “a gifted preacher and faithful priest” . . . who apparently found the time in the midst of all that faithfulness to supply – you guessed it – the latest edit to that Wikipedia page. :^)
More comments may be found here.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Obama the Baby-Killer
If my headline offends, then I suggest you read this article. It says it all on how radically pro-abortion Barack Obama is . . . even more so than Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
Some lowlights:
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only [Illinois state] senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”
Given Obama’s position on babies born alive, it should come as no surprise that he opposes and denounces all restrictions on every kind of abortion, including partial-birth abortions. He promised at a Planned Parenthood event in July 2007 that “the first thing” he will do as president — his top priority for the nation — is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase every federal and state restriction on abortion, no matter how modest. His top priority, again, is to re-legalize partial birth abortion under all circumstances, abolish all laws on informed consent and parental notification, and eliminate all state restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions.
Hat tip to Stand Firm.
Some lowlights:
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only [Illinois state] senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”
Given Obama’s position on babies born alive, it should come as no surprise that he opposes and denounces all restrictions on every kind of abortion, including partial-birth abortions. He promised at a Planned Parenthood event in July 2007 that “the first thing” he will do as president — his top priority for the nation — is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase every federal and state restriction on abortion, no matter how modest. His top priority, again, is to re-legalize partial birth abortion under all circumstances, abolish all laws on informed consent and parental notification, and eliminate all state restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions.
Hat tip to Stand Firm.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Bishop Iker’s Statement on Ft. Worth-RC Talks
Bishop Iker has issued a statement on the aforementioned talks between four of his priests and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ft. Worth:
I am aware of a meeting that four priests of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have had with Bishop Kevin Vann of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth on June 16, 2008. After a year of studying various agreed statements that have come out of ecumenical dialogues between Anglicans and Roman Catholics on the national and international level, these clergy expressed an interest in having a dialogue on the local level and asked my permission to make an appointment to talk with Bishop Vann. The stated goal of these official Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues (which have been going on for over 40 years) has been full, visible unity between the two communions.
The priests who participated in this meeting with Bishop Vann have my trust and pastoral support. However, in their written and verbal reports, they have spoken only on their own behalf and out of their own concerns and perspective. They have not claimed to act or speak, nor have they been authorized to do so, either on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth or on my own behalf as their Bishop.
Their discussion with Bishop Vann has no bearing upon matters coming before our Diocesan Convention in November, where a second vote will be taken on constitutional changes concerning our relationship with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. There is no proposal under consideration, either publicly or privately, for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to become part of the Roman Catholic Church. Our only plan of action remains as it has been for the past year, as affirmed by our Diocesan Convention in November 2007. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth intends to realign with an orthodox Province as a constituent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
By God’s grace, we will continue to work and pray for the unity of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
August 12, 2008
He’s not ruling out unity with Rome. And I don’t expect any good Anglo-Catholic to do so. But in putting these talks in perspective, he now makes it appear very unlikely the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth will be joining Rome any time soon.
I am aware of a meeting that four priests of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have had with Bishop Kevin Vann of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth on June 16, 2008. After a year of studying various agreed statements that have come out of ecumenical dialogues between Anglicans and Roman Catholics on the national and international level, these clergy expressed an interest in having a dialogue on the local level and asked my permission to make an appointment to talk with Bishop Vann. The stated goal of these official Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues (which have been going on for over 40 years) has been full, visible unity between the two communions.
The priests who participated in this meeting with Bishop Vann have my trust and pastoral support. However, in their written and verbal reports, they have spoken only on their own behalf and out of their own concerns and perspective. They have not claimed to act or speak, nor have they been authorized to do so, either on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth or on my own behalf as their Bishop.
Their discussion with Bishop Vann has no bearing upon matters coming before our Diocesan Convention in November, where a second vote will be taken on constitutional changes concerning our relationship with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. There is no proposal under consideration, either publicly or privately, for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to become part of the Roman Catholic Church. Our only plan of action remains as it has been for the past year, as affirmed by our Diocesan Convention in November 2007. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth intends to realign with an orthodox Province as a constituent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
By God’s grace, we will continue to work and pray for the unity of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
August 12, 2008
He’s not ruling out unity with Rome. And I don’t expect any good Anglo-Catholic to do so. But in putting these talks in perspective, he now makes it appear very unlikely the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth will be joining Rome any time soon.
Phony China Olympics
I made a point not to watch the phony opening ceremonies. But it turns out much of them were indeed faked, including replacing a 7 year old singer whom Chinese authorities deemed not pretty enough.
Shameful.
Shameful.
Ft. Worth in Talks With Rome?
I don’t know what to make of this story, particularly since this source lacks credibility with me. But it appears the Diocese of Ft. Worth has been in talks about entering full communion with Rome.
I’m not jumping to conclusions. But this would be disappointing given Ft. Worth’s support of GAFCON, its amicable relationships with orthodox Anglicans of various stripes, including the REC, and that it’s a just a darn good diocese.
I’ll keep an eye on this story.
I’m not jumping to conclusions. But this would be disappointing given Ft. Worth’s support of GAFCON, its amicable relationships with orthodox Anglicans of various stripes, including the REC, and that it’s a just a darn good diocese.
I’ll keep an eye on this story.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Why I am Steamed Over the +Rowan Letters
I don’t know of anyone who is shocked over Rowan William’s letters on homosexuality from earlier this decade, not long before he became Archbishop of Canterbury. I’m certainly not. But they do remind me why I’ve had it with that occupant of the Chair of St. Augustine. And, no, his lame explanation with the backing of the usual company men doesn’t appease me.
Now, I’m not steamed because his views on the subject are different than mine. I assumed that was the case even back when I had a positive view of him and had a degree of hope in his leadership. But back then, I trusted him to do what he said he would do – to put the teaching and discipline of the Anglican Communion above his personal views and to act accordingly.
In that, he has woefully and willfully failed. Time and again, and particularly with his Lambeth invitations, he has chosen to undermine other instruments of the Communion, particularly the Primates Meetings and Lambeth 1998, and to withhold discipline from the North American apostates. Dr. Williams says, “As Archbishop I understand my responsibility to be to the declared teaching of the church I serve, and thus to discourage any developments that might imply that the position and convictions of the worldwide Communion have changed.” But his enabling actions and inactions speak louder and have more effect than his words.
I should have known he would enable, not discipline, the apostates in the end. Personal views do matter.
And someone whose personal views are so out of synch with the clear teaching of the Anglican Communion (Or at least it was clear before he became the ABC.) had no business becoming a bishop, much less the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Now, I’m not steamed because his views on the subject are different than mine. I assumed that was the case even back when I had a positive view of him and had a degree of hope in his leadership. But back then, I trusted him to do what he said he would do – to put the teaching and discipline of the Anglican Communion above his personal views and to act accordingly.
In that, he has woefully and willfully failed. Time and again, and particularly with his Lambeth invitations, he has chosen to undermine other instruments of the Communion, particularly the Primates Meetings and Lambeth 1998, and to withhold discipline from the North American apostates. Dr. Williams says, “As Archbishop I understand my responsibility to be to the declared teaching of the church I serve, and thus to discourage any developments that might imply that the position and convictions of the worldwide Communion have changed.” But his enabling actions and inactions speak louder and have more effect than his words.
I should have known he would enable, not discipline, the apostates in the end. Personal views do matter.
And someone whose personal views are so out of synch with the clear teaching of the Anglican Communion (Or at least it was clear before he became the ABC.) had no business becoming a bishop, much less the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Monday, I Play Magnus!
This Monday at 1pm CST, I play Magnus Carlsen at the Internet Chess Club.
Magnus Carlsen is probably the second best player in the world now. And at 17, he’s a likely future world champion. I’ve been a fan of his since he was 13, so I’m pretty excited.
29 others will be playing him at the same time in a “simul” to raise money for Dusan Popovic, a grandmaster with serious medical problems. And you, too, may contribute even if you are not playing Magnus. More details are here.
If I’m not too embarrassed by how bad he beats me, I might post the moves here afterward.
Magnus Carlsen is probably the second best player in the world now. And at 17, he’s a likely future world champion. I’ve been a fan of his since he was 13, so I’m pretty excited.
29 others will be playing him at the same time in a “simul” to raise money for Dusan Popovic, a grandmaster with serious medical problems. And you, too, may contribute even if you are not playing Magnus. More details are here.
If I’m not too embarrassed by how bad he beats me, I might post the moves here afterward.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
About the China Olympics . . .
In times past, I would get quite excited about the Summer Olympics. You see, I was a serious and successful distance runner from ages 14 to 18 and followed Track and Field closely. (FWIW, best times: 9:38 2 mile and 4:24 1 mile if my memory is correct.)
During my running years, my ambition was to win gold in the Olympics. My eye was on the 1500 meter at first. But when it became clear that my talent lie in longer distances, I dreamed of winning the Marathon, and I worked hard toward that dream, running more than 100 miles a week one summer (which in hindsight was overdoing it and hastened the end of my running career).
I say all this to provide some background to my attitude about the China Olympics, which is not very positive. I’ve long been disgusted that a country with the poor human rights and downright evil foreign policy record of China got the Olympics. I rooted for those protesting the torch relay. And, if I watch the Olympics, I’ll be rooting for any protests that might crop up. Yes, there are a couple athletic stories I find interesting. But even in that area of actual athletics, I don’t find this Olympics as interesting as in the past. I won’t be watching much.
But how should the U. S. government respond? Although I think it highly inappropriate that President Bush will attend the opening ceremonies, I think a boycott would have been a bad idea. But then I think the 1980 Moscow Olympic boycott was a bad idea . . . even though it had the wonderful result of the Soviet Union retaliating by boycotting the 1984 L. A. Olympics – an Olympics free of Soviet cheating was very refreshing!
I did and still do look at it from the viewpoint of the athlete. To train and look forward to the Olympics and then have that taken away would be devastating. There are surely better ways to protest than at the expense of the athletes.
If I were an Olympian today? I would go to China, but skirt the rules and protest, perhaps with tattoos or patches saying “Free Tibet.” I would go to the Olympics, protest, and compete. If that got me kicked out of the games, then so be it. To be so kicked out of these sorry Olympics would be an honor perhaps greater than a gold medal.
And I do consider the awarding of these Olympics to China sorry. I hope they are a big flop and an embarrassment to that evil regime.
During my running years, my ambition was to win gold in the Olympics. My eye was on the 1500 meter at first. But when it became clear that my talent lie in longer distances, I dreamed of winning the Marathon, and I worked hard toward that dream, running more than 100 miles a week one summer (which in hindsight was overdoing it and hastened the end of my running career).
I say all this to provide some background to my attitude about the China Olympics, which is not very positive. I’ve long been disgusted that a country with the poor human rights and downright evil foreign policy record of China got the Olympics. I rooted for those protesting the torch relay. And, if I watch the Olympics, I’ll be rooting for any protests that might crop up. Yes, there are a couple athletic stories I find interesting. But even in that area of actual athletics, I don’t find this Olympics as interesting as in the past. I won’t be watching much.
But how should the U. S. government respond? Although I think it highly inappropriate that President Bush will attend the opening ceremonies, I think a boycott would have been a bad idea. But then I think the 1980 Moscow Olympic boycott was a bad idea . . . even though it had the wonderful result of the Soviet Union retaliating by boycotting the 1984 L. A. Olympics – an Olympics free of Soviet cheating was very refreshing!
I did and still do look at it from the viewpoint of the athlete. To train and look forward to the Olympics and then have that taken away would be devastating. There are surely better ways to protest than at the expense of the athletes.
If I were an Olympian today? I would go to China, but skirt the rules and protest, perhaps with tattoos or patches saying “Free Tibet.” I would go to the Olympics, protest, and compete. If that got me kicked out of the games, then so be it. To be so kicked out of these sorry Olympics would be an honor perhaps greater than a gold medal.
And I do consider the awarding of these Olympics to China sorry. I hope they are a big flop and an embarrassment to that evil regime.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Ingrates
One of the truly odd things to come out of Lambeth is the ingratitude and bitterness from the Episcopal Church toward the Archbishop of Canterbury. Heck, he’s rigged Lambeth and just about everything else to ensure the Episcopal Church will never be disciplined for its enormities. But those who should most appreciate his efforts apparently don’t at all.
BabyBlue reports toward the end of this podcast that Presiding Heretic Schori sat with her arms folded and a number of TEC bishops walked out while more normal bishops gave ++Rowan a standing ovation at the end of Lambeth.
Maybe they are upset over his concluding press conference or his statement that he will talk to GAFCON. Or maybe having their apostasies enabled just isn’t good enough for them. They want them enshrined. Perhaps when there is gay sex on the high altar of Canterbury Cathedral with a shrine to Moloch on the side complete with a continual stream of orthodox being thrown down its brazen throat they will be happy. Perhaps.
It’s apparent nothing but total victory will please these people. Their actions and attitudes confirm Neuhaus’ Law: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will be proscribed.”
The Bishops of Winchester and Exeter are right. For the sake of orthodoxy and genuine unity in the Anglican Communion, these stiff-necked apostates must be cut off from the Communion. Otherwise, they will be a continual source of apostasy and schism.
BabyBlue reports toward the end of this podcast that Presiding Heretic Schori sat with her arms folded and a number of TEC bishops walked out while more normal bishops gave ++Rowan a standing ovation at the end of Lambeth.
Maybe they are upset over his concluding press conference or his statement that he will talk to GAFCON. Or maybe having their apostasies enabled just isn’t good enough for them. They want them enshrined. Perhaps when there is gay sex on the high altar of Canterbury Cathedral with a shrine to Moloch on the side complete with a continual stream of orthodox being thrown down its brazen throat they will be happy. Perhaps.
It’s apparent nothing but total victory will please these people. Their actions and attitudes confirm Neuhaus’ Law: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will be proscribed.”
The Bishops of Winchester and Exeter are right. For the sake of orthodoxy and genuine unity in the Anglican Communion, these stiff-necked apostates must be cut off from the Communion. Otherwise, they will be a continual source of apostasy and schism.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Lambeth: ++Rowan Williams on the Proposed Moratorium on Interventions
It may not surprise my good readers that I’m not terribly impressed with Lambeth and may leave commentary on it to others. But the following from the Archbishop of Canterbury provokes me. In his concluding Presidential Address, after discussing the proposed moratoria on same-sex blessings and bishops, he continued:
It’s worth adding, too, that the call for a moratorium on interventions across provinces belongs in the same theological framework.
Sorry, I have to stop right there. It does NOT belong “in the same theological framework” of same-sex innovations at all. Even church fathers, such as St. Athanasius, engaged in interventions, but they sure as heck did not engage in same-sex blessings. And, while there are a number of passages addressing same-sex conduct, scripture does not say much about the holiness of diocesan boundaries. Moreover, the Primates Meeting clearly said that interventions to relieve distressed orthodox are NOT equivalent to the enormities of North American provinces. Yet ++Rowan ignores and undermines the Primates . . . once again.
++Henry Luke Orombi is right : “Anglicans may say there are four ‘Instruments of Communion,’ (the Archbishop of Canterbury; the Lambeth Conference; the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting). But de facto, there is only one - the Archbishop of Canterbury.” In today’s Anglican Communion, it seems what really matters is what Holy Rowan thinks, not the councils of the church.
O. K., read the rest while I calm down.
Such interventions often imply that nothing within a province, no provision made or pastoral care offered, can be recognizably and adequately Christian; and this is a claim not lightly to be made by any Christian community regarding any other without grave breach of charity. And it seems to be widely agreed in this Conference that internal pastoral and liturgical care, strengthened by arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the USA and the proposed Pastoral Forum we have been discussing, are the way we should go if we want to avoid further ecclesial confusion.
No, that portrayal of the motivations behind interventions is inaccurate at best. I don’t hear any primate saying there is nothing in The Episcopal Church that is “recognizably and adequately Christian.” Many (though it’s certainly becoming less many) faithful remain in the Episcopal Church. The problem is that the leadership of TEC is stamping out more and more of what is “recognizably and adequately Christian” and is making life more and more difficult for parishes and dioceses which hold firmly to the faith once delivered.
Are the Primates to follow Holy Rowan’s policy of doing little to nothing to relieve those distressed orthodox? Would St. Athanasius declare apostate territory sacrosanct?
GAFCON, not Lambeth, has the right idea – apostate bishops are to be considered not bishops at all and their bishoprics vacant. And the faithful in those territories are to be provided for, and the unsaved evangelized. Let the interventions continue and flourish!
It’s worth adding, too, that the call for a moratorium on interventions across provinces belongs in the same theological framework.
Sorry, I have to stop right there. It does NOT belong “in the same theological framework” of same-sex innovations at all. Even church fathers, such as St. Athanasius, engaged in interventions, but they sure as heck did not engage in same-sex blessings. And, while there are a number of passages addressing same-sex conduct, scripture does not say much about the holiness of diocesan boundaries. Moreover, the Primates Meeting clearly said that interventions to relieve distressed orthodox are NOT equivalent to the enormities of North American provinces. Yet ++Rowan ignores and undermines the Primates . . . once again.
++Henry Luke Orombi is right : “Anglicans may say there are four ‘Instruments of Communion,’ (the Archbishop of Canterbury; the Lambeth Conference; the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting). But de facto, there is only one - the Archbishop of Canterbury.” In today’s Anglican Communion, it seems what really matters is what Holy Rowan thinks, not the councils of the church.
O. K., read the rest while I calm down.
Such interventions often imply that nothing within a province, no provision made or pastoral care offered, can be recognizably and adequately Christian; and this is a claim not lightly to be made by any Christian community regarding any other without grave breach of charity. And it seems to be widely agreed in this Conference that internal pastoral and liturgical care, strengthened by arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the USA and the proposed Pastoral Forum we have been discussing, are the way we should go if we want to avoid further ecclesial confusion.
No, that portrayal of the motivations behind interventions is inaccurate at best. I don’t hear any primate saying there is nothing in The Episcopal Church that is “recognizably and adequately Christian.” Many (though it’s certainly becoming less many) faithful remain in the Episcopal Church. The problem is that the leadership of TEC is stamping out more and more of what is “recognizably and adequately Christian” and is making life more and more difficult for parishes and dioceses which hold firmly to the faith once delivered.
Are the Primates to follow Holy Rowan’s policy of doing little to nothing to relieve those distressed orthodox? Would St. Athanasius declare apostate territory sacrosanct?
GAFCON, not Lambeth, has the right idea – apostate bishops are to be considered not bishops at all and their bishoprics vacant. And the faithful in those territories are to be provided for, and the unsaved evangelized. Let the interventions continue and flourish!
Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, R.I.P.
I can do no better to salute the great man upon his passing than this editorial.
He was indeed a man devoted to telling the truth, no matter what the cost.
He was indeed a man devoted to telling the truth, no matter what the cost.
Friday, August 01, 2008
++Henry Luke Orombi on the Archbishop of Canterbury
The Times has published a piece by the Archbishop of Uganda explaining Uganda’s absence from Lambeth. It would be safe to say it has shaken Lambeth up a bit.
What stands out is ++Orombi’s critique of the Archbishop of Canterbury:
. . . when the Archbishop of Canterbury invited these American bishops to participate in the Lambeth Conference, against the recommendations of the Windsor Report and the Primates' Meeting, and in the face of the unrelenting commitment of the American Church to bless sinful behaviour, we were stunned. Further betrayal.
And betrayal is exactly the right word. Rowan Williams strung along the orthodox with the Windsor Report, Primates Meetings, the Panel of Reference, etc. et al. It was all a deception. When he finally had to make a decision, he in effect declared the Episcopal Church in compliance with Windsor and with the decisions of the Primates even though it was obvious TEC was not. I’m tempted to say he lied, but lying is intentional; and he so strenuously wanted to keep the Anglican Communion together, it may have effected his judgement. In any case, although the Episcopal Church didn’t even allow a vote on Windsor compliance at their last General Convention, Rowan sided with the apostates and against the orthodox and against the clear decisions of the Primates. The last straw in that regard were his invitations to Lambeth. The apostate North American bishops, save one, were invited. Orthodox bishops appointed to relieve distressed North American orthodox Anglicans, such as the CANA bishops, were not. Yes, Rowan Williams indeed betrayed the orthodox majority of the Anglican Communion.
It was clear to me and to our House of Bishops that the Instruments of Communion had utterly failed us.
Anglicans may say there are four “Instruments of Communion,” (the Archbishop of Canterbury; the Lambeth Conference; the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting). But de facto, there is only one - the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Again, correct. The Primates Meetings mandated discipline of the Episcopal Church. Rowan vetoed that.
Which begs the question – why go to Lambeth, when, if it takes real action to discipline apostates, Holy Rowan will veto that, too? What’s the point of councils when one man has demonstrated he can and will thwart them?
The peculiar thing is that this one man, who is at the centre of the communion's structures, is not even elected by his peers. Even the Pope is elected by his peers, but what Anglicans have is a man appointed by a secular government. Over the past five years, we have come to see this as a remnant of British colonialism, and it is not serving us well. The spiritual leadership of a global communion of independent and autonomous provinces should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government.
There ++Orombi boldly nails the long-term problem. The government-appointed Archbishop of Canterbury should not be the leader of the Anglican Communion any longer. A Primates Council or some other form of conciliar government of the Communion would be much better. The past few years have proven that. The Primates Meetings led in the right direction of church discipline. The Archbishop of Canterbury led in the completely different direction of enabling apostasy. And ++Canterbury got his way.
++Orombi is right to refuse to play that game any longer.
What stands out is ++Orombi’s critique of the Archbishop of Canterbury:
. . . when the Archbishop of Canterbury invited these American bishops to participate in the Lambeth Conference, against the recommendations of the Windsor Report and the Primates' Meeting, and in the face of the unrelenting commitment of the American Church to bless sinful behaviour, we were stunned. Further betrayal.
And betrayal is exactly the right word. Rowan Williams strung along the orthodox with the Windsor Report, Primates Meetings, the Panel of Reference, etc. et al. It was all a deception. When he finally had to make a decision, he in effect declared the Episcopal Church in compliance with Windsor and with the decisions of the Primates even though it was obvious TEC was not. I’m tempted to say he lied, but lying is intentional; and he so strenuously wanted to keep the Anglican Communion together, it may have effected his judgement. In any case, although the Episcopal Church didn’t even allow a vote on Windsor compliance at their last General Convention, Rowan sided with the apostates and against the orthodox and against the clear decisions of the Primates. The last straw in that regard were his invitations to Lambeth. The apostate North American bishops, save one, were invited. Orthodox bishops appointed to relieve distressed North American orthodox Anglicans, such as the CANA bishops, were not. Yes, Rowan Williams indeed betrayed the orthodox majority of the Anglican Communion.
It was clear to me and to our House of Bishops that the Instruments of Communion had utterly failed us.
Anglicans may say there are four “Instruments of Communion,” (the Archbishop of Canterbury; the Lambeth Conference; the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting). But de facto, there is only one - the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Again, correct. The Primates Meetings mandated discipline of the Episcopal Church. Rowan vetoed that.
Which begs the question – why go to Lambeth, when, if it takes real action to discipline apostates, Holy Rowan will veto that, too? What’s the point of councils when one man has demonstrated he can and will thwart them?
The peculiar thing is that this one man, who is at the centre of the communion's structures, is not even elected by his peers. Even the Pope is elected by his peers, but what Anglicans have is a man appointed by a secular government. Over the past five years, we have come to see this as a remnant of British colonialism, and it is not serving us well. The spiritual leadership of a global communion of independent and autonomous provinces should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government.
There ++Orombi boldly nails the long-term problem. The government-appointed Archbishop of Canterbury should not be the leader of the Anglican Communion any longer. A Primates Council or some other form of conciliar government of the Communion would be much better. The past few years have proven that. The Primates Meetings led in the right direction of church discipline. The Archbishop of Canterbury led in the completely different direction of enabling apostasy. And ++Canterbury got his way.
++Orombi is right to refuse to play that game any longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)