Clarity vs. Obsfucation

My, oh my, there must have been a lot of clucking today at 815 Second Avenue! His Grace John-David, Bishop of San Joaquin, has replied to the Presiding Bishop's threatening letter concerning San Joaquin's upcoming vote whether or not to secede. +Schofield wastes no time getting down to business: "Dear Bishop Schori: Greetings in the name of our Lord and only Savior Jesus Christ." You gotta love the use of the word "only," which ribs KJS's earlier universalist assertion, made in a New York Times interview, that contrary to John 14:6, insisting Jesus is the only way to the Father "puts God in an awfully small box" (who took the measurements?). Then it's straight to the matter at hand, +Schofield's alleged violations of his vow to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God.” Well, no, he replies, it is actually the Episcopal Church that is in error, that "as an institution, [it] is walking a path of apostasy and those faithful to God’s Word are forced to make painful choices;" that it is his diocese, not he, that will make the decision whether or not to take the highway. +Schofield, however, certainly indicates the desire and certainty the vote will indeed be to ditch and that he is prepared to lead his diocese on a journey that could prove to be very difficult. Yet there is a remarkable absence of animosity in his letter, just an expression of quiet joy, lucidly written, in being allowed to do all such good works as God has prepared for him to walk in. Do read it all.

Now, just for fun, compare and contrast +Schofield's letter with one just sent off to Cantuar by the Presiding Bishop and her friends in which they make a proposal for (would you believe it?) Alternative Primatial Oversight. Yep, of all things! You get the feeling those New Religionists over at 815 have finally realized there just may be a touch of unrest among a segment of Episcopalians over the wholesale makeover of ritual and theology these past thirty years. Well, that does show a certain sensitivity and I suppose we should be grateful. But gee whiz, after slogging through the turgid prose in the letter (these innovators are astonishingly bad writers, nearly as bad as the educationists in our public schools), it's hard to get excited about this proposal.

It starts of promisingly enough, with a statement that appeals for APO are being taken "seriously," but quickly goes downhill when we learn in paragraph 2 APO takes the shape of a "Primatial Vicar" appointed by none other than the Presiding Bishop herself (in "consultation" with Canterbury, we're assured). We learn further this Primatial Vicar "would be accountable to the Presiding Bishop" and, of course, a committee (what would 815 be without committees?). But what really brings this turkey crashing to earth is paragraph 3.

This arrangement for a Primatial Vicar does not affect the administrative or other canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop except to the degree that the Presiding Bishop may wish to delegate, when appropriate, some of those duties to the Primatial Vicar. The Primatial Vicar and the Advisory Panel shall function in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.

I read the above as TEC saying, "you can have your silly old APO but only when it suits us and only if it doesn't conflict with any of our essential and urgently needed innovations, both existing and to come." The position of Primatial Vicar is clearly one of a toothless and functionary hack and will in no way assuage reasserters here nor effect any healing of impaired communion abroad. What this clunker of a proposal does indicate, however, is the dawning awareness of TEC leadership they have serious problem on their hands, one much more serious than they realized. This cobbled together proposal is their panicked attempt to deal with it. Forget it: The movie sucks and the people are headed for the exits; the management is trying to lure them back with an offer of a small popcorn (without even butter-product!). It won't work.

(Thanks to titusonenine, that indispensible resource in the Anglican Blogosphere.)

Clarity vs. Obsfucation

My, oh my, there must have been a lot of clucking today at 815 Second Avenue! His Grace John-David, Bishop of San Joaquin, has replied to the Presiding Bishop's threatening letter concerning San Joaquin's upcoming vote whether or not to secede. +Schofield wastes no time getting down to business: "Dear Bishop Schori: Greetings in the name of our Lord and only Savior Jesus Christ." You gotta love the use of the word "only," which ribs KJS's earlier universalist assertion, made in a New York Times interview, that contrary to John 14:6, insisting Jesus is the only way to the Father "puts God in an awfully small box" (who took the measurements?). Then it's straight to the matter at hand, +Schofield's alleged violations of his vow to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God.” Well, no, he replies, it is actually the Episcopal Church that is in error, that "as an institution, [it] is walking a path of apostasy and those faithful to God’s Word are forced to make painful choices;" that it is his diocese, not he, that will make the decision whether or not to take the highway. +Schofield, however, certainly indicates the desire and certainty the vote will indeed be to ditch and that he is prepared to lead his diocese on a journey that could prove to be very difficult. Yet there is a remarkable absence of animosity in his letter, just an expression of quiet joy, lucidly written, in being allowed to do all such good works as God has prepared for him to walk in. Do read it all.

Now, just for fun, compare and contrast +Schofield's letter with one just sent off to Cantuar by the Presiding Bishop and her friends in which they make a proposal for (would you believe it?) Alternative Primatial Oversight. Yep, of all things! You get the feeling those New Religionists over at 815 have finally realized there just may be a touch of unrest among a segment of Episcopalians over the wholesale makeover of ritual and theology these past thirty years. Well, that does show a certain sensitivity and I suppose we should be grateful. But gee whiz, after slogging through the turgid prose in the letter (these innovators are astonishingly bad writers, nearly as bad as the educationists in our public schools), it's hard to get excited about this proposal.

It starts of promisingly enough, with a statement that appeals for APO are being taken "seriously," but quickly goes downhill when we learn in paragraph 2 APO takes the shape of a "Primatial Vicar" appointed by none other than the Presiding Bishop herself (in "consultation" with Canterbury, we're assured). We learn further this Primatial Vicar "would be accountable to the Presiding Bishop" and, of course, a committee (what would 815 be without committees?). But what really brings this turkey crashing to earth is paragraph 3.

This arrangement for a Primatial Vicar does not affect the administrative or other canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop except to the degree that the Presiding Bishop may wish to delegate, when appropriate, some of those duties to the Primatial Vicar. The Primatial Vicar and the Advisory Panel shall function in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.

I read the above as TEC saying, "you can have your silly old APO but only when it suits us and only if it doesn't conflict with any of our essential and urgently needed innovations, both existing and to come." The position of Primatial Vicar is clearly one of a toothless and functionary hack and will in no way assuage reasserters here nor effect any healing of impaired communion abroad. What this clunker of a proposal does indicate, however, is the dawning awareness of TEC leadership they have serious problem on their hands, one much more serious than they realized. This cobbled together proposal is their panicked attempt to deal with it. Forget it: The movie sucks and the people are headed for the exits; the management is trying to lure them back with an offer of a small popcorn (without even butter-product!). It won't work.

(Thanks to titusonenine, that indispensible resource in the Anglican Blogosphere.)

A Handy New Tool for Protestants

Shamelessly lifted from Anglo-Catholic Ruminations.

A Handy New Tool for Protestants

Shamelessly lifted from Anglo-Catholic Ruminations.

The Fun Begins

One of the songs I remember fondly from high school days, blasting out of the radio while I bopped around in my pickup truck, was the legendary Alice Cooper's "No more Mister Nice Guy" (and isn't that a fine beginning to a posting on an Anglo-Catholic's blog? Never mind the locale was Greenwich, Connecticut and the pickup truck was Japanese: I was a rebel at heart, promise!). That fine ol' bit of rock 'n' roll came flooding back to me yesterday when I read the letter fearless +Iker of Fort Worth fired off recently to +Lee of Virginia, wherein he sends his regrets he is unable to lunch today to discuss Alternative Primal Oversight. Oh, and +Duncan of Pittsburgh wouldn't be able to make it either. As a matter of fact, none of the eight bishops requesting APO would be at this meeting (it will no doubt go much smoother than the last one).

Well, huzzah, huzzah, it's about time! Our orthodox leadership, having these past 30 years being regarded and treated by the inclusive New Religionists as creatures found crawling under a rock, has finally had enough. They will no longer go along with the charade of countless meetings whose only purpose is to spoon pablum to the orthodox while giving more time to their innovative betters to plan the next innovative assault. Iker said at the end of the last go-round he was "not interested in having more meetings to plan to have more meetings" and it looks as if he meant it. Katharine Jefforts Schori has made it clear she's ready to bring out the big guns to deal with the pesky reactionaries. Bring 'em on, I say, but she's going to have to move fast. The Diocese of San Joaquin is voting this weekend to abandon the foundering ship that is the Episcopal Church. Should they do so, others are sure to follow and 815 Second Avenue will soon find itself trying to fire artillery from the bottom of the ocean.

The Fun Begins

One of the songs I remember fondly from high school days, blasting out of the radio while I bopped around in my pickup truck, was the legendary Alice Cooper's "No more Mister Nice Guy" (and isn't that a fine beginning to a posting on an Anglo-Catholic's blog? Never mind the locale was Greenwich, Connecticut and the pickup truck was Japanese: I was a rebel at heart, promise!). That fine ol' bit of rock 'n' roll came flooding back to me yesterday when I read the letter fearless +Iker of Fort Worth fired off recently to +Lee of Virginia, wherein he sends his regrets he is unable to lunch today to discuss Alternative Primal Oversight. Oh, and +Duncan of Pittsburgh wouldn't be able to make it either. As a matter of fact, none of the eight bishops requesting APO would be at this meeting (it will no doubt go much smoother than the last one).

Well, huzzah, huzzah, it's about time! Our orthodox leadership, having these past 30 years being regarded and treated by the inclusive New Religionists as creatures found crawling under a rock, has finally had enough. They will no longer go along with the charade of countless meetings whose only purpose is to spoon pablum to the orthodox while giving more time to their innovative betters to plan the next innovative assault. Iker said at the end of the last go-round he was "not interested in having more meetings to plan to have more meetings" and it looks as if he meant it. Katharine Jefforts Schori has made it clear she's ready to bring out the big guns to deal with the pesky reactionaries. Bring 'em on, I say, but she's going to have to move fast. The Diocese of San Joaquin is voting this weekend to abandon the foundering ship that is the Episcopal Church. Should they do so, others are sure to follow and 815 Second Avenue will soon find itself trying to fire artillery from the bottom of the ocean.

Musings from Someone "Better Educated"

From the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori:

Episcopalians tend to be better educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than other denominations.

From Mark Steyn:

If you measure the births of the Muslim world against the dearth of Bishop Kate's Episcopalians, you have the perfect snapshot of why there is no "stability": With every passing month, there are more Muslims and fewer Episcopalians, and the Muslims export their manpower to Europe and other depopulating outposts of the West. It's the intersection of demography and Islamism that makes time a luxury we can't afford.

This is but a mere sampling, read it all. Steyn's ability to eviscerate the fatuous is a wonder to behold, nobody does it better. As Waugh said of Wodehouse, "He is the master of us all." (Thanks to Bro. James.)

Musings from Someone "Better Educated"

From the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori:

Episcopalians tend to be better educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than other denominations.

From Mark Steyn:

If you measure the births of the Muslim world against the dearth of Bishop Kate's Episcopalians, you have the perfect snapshot of why there is no "stability": With every passing month, there are more Muslims and fewer Episcopalians, and the Muslims export their manpower to Europe and other depopulating outposts of the West. It's the intersection of demography and Islamism that makes time a luxury we can't afford.

This is but a mere sampling, read it all. Steyn's ability to eviscerate the fatuous is a wonder to behold, nobody does it better. As Waugh said of Wodehouse, "He is the master of us all." (Thanks to Bro. James.)

"Baste me in Butter and Call Me Slappy"

Happy Thanksgiving! From the New York Times: A hilarious piece on personal ads in the London Review of Books (I can't believe I beat titusonenine on this one!).

"Baste me in Butter and Call Me Slappy"

Happy Thanksgiving! From the New York Times: A hilarious piece on personal ads in the London Review of Books (I can't believe I beat titusonenine on this one!).

Looks As If It's Getting Serious

Our Presiding Bishop has sent, and released to the public, a corker of a letter to the Bishop of San Joaquin, the Rt. Rev'd John-David Schofield. In this strongly worded missive she warns him the serious consequences of his recommending to his parishes they ditch the Episcopal Church. She also advises if +Schofield doesn't like the New Religion of the modern Episcopal church, "he seek a home elsewhere" and continuing, in a richly ironic vein, "our forebears [did not] give liberally to fund endowments with the intent that they be consumed by litigation."

You know, in a way, I like this woman: She takes no guff and unlike her mincing predecessor, she lets you know exactly where she stands. Clarity is her byword, at least when she's not talking theology. She no doubt feels noisome rebels like +Schofield are long overdue receiving their easily delivered comeuppance (I'll bet Leo X was similarly confident).

We shall see. Much as I like KJS's directness, I wonder if she also doesn't have her head in the clouds (to use the politer of the two expressions). Can she really not see she and her colleagues' "religion" is so utterly removed and detached from that of +Schofield, +Ackermann, +Iker, et al., that, in effect, the abandonment has already taken place; that it is academic to try and determine who abandoned whom?

If the Diocese of San Joaquin does vote secession (and they likely will, by a substantial margin) then KJS's only recourse is to deplete that endowment for which she express so much concern, trying to force it back. She and TEC will fail. The best she can hope for is the courts in California, going against precedent, will let TEC keep the buildings. The people, of course, will leave and TEC will find itself on an irreversable course, similar to that of the Christian Scientist Church: A large, if diminishing,endowment, magnificent, if deteriorating, buildings and a small and dying membership.

Looks As If It's Getting Serious

Our Presiding Bishop has sent, and released to the public, a corker of a letter to the Bishop of San Joaquin, the Rt. Rev'd John-David Schofield. In this strongly worded missive she warns him the serious consequences of his recommending to his parishes they ditch the Episcopal Church. She also advises if +Schofield doesn't like the New Religion of the modern Episcopal church, "he seek a home elsewhere" and continuing, in a richly ironic vein, "our forebears [did not] give liberally to fund endowments with the intent that they be consumed by litigation."

You know, in a way, I like this woman: She takes no guff and unlike her mincing predecessor, she lets you know exactly where she stands. Clarity is her byword, at least when she's not talking theology. She no doubt feels noisome rebels like +Schofield are long overdue receiving their easily delivered comeuppance (I'll bet Leo X was similarly confident).

We shall see. Much as I like KJS's directness, I wonder if she also doesn't have her head in the clouds (to use the politer of the two expressions). Can she really not see she and her colleagues' "religion" is so utterly removed and detached from that of +Schofield, +Ackermann, +Iker, et al., that, in effect, the abandonment has already taken place; that it is academic to try and determine who abandoned whom?

If the Diocese of San Joaquin does vote secession (and they likely will, by a substantial margin) then KJS's only recourse is to deplete that endowment for which she express so much concern, trying to force it back. She and TEC will fail. The best she can hope for is the courts in California, going against precedent, will let TEC keep the buildings. The people, of course, will leave and TEC will find itself on an irreversable course, similar to that of the Christian Scientist Church: A large, if diminishing,endowment, magnificent, if deteriorating, buildings and a small and dying membership.

It's a Religion of Peace . . .

. . . But that doesn't preclude some good ol' American-style provocation. We will not toleratate your intolerance!

It's a Religion of Peace . . .

. . . But that doesn't preclude some good ol' American-style provocation. We will not toleratate your intolerance!

Quo Vadis?

In my late teens I found my way back to the Episcopal Church from which I had fallen away when younger. I attended confirmation classes under the inspiring tutelage of the Rev'd G. Harris Collingwood at the Church of the Advent in Boston and was later confirmed at that same wonderful institution. It was was a joyous occasion and the Advent, then as now, was a glorious shrine to Anglo-Catholic worship. The year this happy event took place, unfortunately, was 1976, thus at precisely the time I returned to the church the church began to leave me. I nevertheless persevered, over the years hanging on; turning the other cheek, seeking out the fewer and fewer orthodox churches wherever my life's journey took me. All the while I hoped and prayed the leaders of the Episcopal Church would see and repent the errors of their ways. They have not and, apparently, will not.

So what to do? I have seriously considered "poping" and have discussed it with two close friends, both of whom are devout and traditional Romans. They both advise against it, one of them writing me, with beautiful succinctness, "I am bound in conscience to tell you that I believe the Catholic Church in the United States as it is presently constituted would pose severe temptations for you against the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity . . . I would far prefer to see you remain a Christian in a corrupt church than to become an apostate from the true one." I have followed that sage counsel.

So here I stand, a Christian in a corrupt church but I will stay put for now. I still cannot believe the majority of us in the pews support the heresies espoused by our leadership. I still like to believe that those of us in the pews will one day come to our senses and wrestle our church back from the New Religionists. I still want to believe that Canterbury will one day take a real stand on the matter and encourage us to take our church back. If not, well, the matter will take care of itself: the Episcopal Church's leadership will devolve into a ragtag collection of goddess worshipers, tree huggers, wiccans, queer-studies types etc., all at cross-purposes with one another with their conflicting pantheistic beliefs. Like brigands they will quarrel over the spoils, the quarrelling will get violent and the institution will eventually be destroyed from within. Those few remaining orthodox, if any, will then have but no choice to walk away and find a new home, a true home; a home that may well have a Roman address.

Quo Vadis?

In my late teens I found my way back to the Episcopal Church from which I had fallen away when younger. I attended confirmation classes under the inspiring tutelage of the Rev'd G. Harris Collingwood at the Church of the Advent in Boston and was later confirmed at that same wonderful institution. It was was a joyous occasion and the Advent, then as now, was a glorious shrine to Anglo-Catholic worship. The year this happy event took place, unfortunately, was 1976, thus at precisely the time I returned to the church the church began to leave me. I nevertheless persevered, over the years hanging on; turning the other cheek, seeking out the fewer and fewer orthodox churches wherever my life's journey took me. All the while I hoped and prayed the leaders of the Episcopal Church would see and repent the errors of their ways. They have not and, apparently, will not.

So what to do? I have seriously considered "poping" and have discussed it with two close friends, both of whom are devout and traditional Romans. They both advise against it, one of them writing me, with beautiful succinctness, "I am bound in conscience to tell you that I believe the Catholic Church in the United States as it is presently constituted would pose severe temptations for you against the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity . . . I would far prefer to see you remain a Christian in a corrupt church than to become an apostate from the true one." I have followed that sage counsel.

So here I stand, a Christian in a corrupt church but I will stay put for now. I still cannot believe the majority of us in the pews support the heresies espoused by our leadership. I still like to believe that those of us in the pews will one day come to our senses and wrestle our church back from the New Religionists. I still want to believe that Canterbury will one day take a real stand on the matter and encourage us to take our church back. If not, well, the matter will take care of itself: the Episcopal Church's leadership will devolve into a ragtag collection of goddess worshipers, tree huggers, wiccans, queer-studies types etc., all at cross-purposes with one another with their conflicting pantheistic beliefs. Like brigands they will quarrel over the spoils, the quarrelling will get violent and the institution will eventually be destroyed from within. Those few remaining orthodox, if any, will then have but no choice to walk away and find a new home, a true home; a home that may well have a Roman address.

Just Because You're a Bishop Doesn't Make You God

A commenter on Whitehall links to a piece in the Daily Mail (UK) about a bishop in the Church of England, the Rt. Rev'd Tom Butler of Southwark, who officially speaking for the Church proposes that doctors be allowed to let sick newborn babies die: that "there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die." While this may seem a reasonable point of view to the compassionate, if casual, thinker, in reality it is a dangerous notion and, unfortunately, all of a piece of the New Religion: that God should serve the individual, not the other way around; that if a dogma results in suffering, the dogma is faulty and must be revised, for God does not intend for us (me) to suffer. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

As Christians, we must believe life is a gift, the greatest gift, from God, as recounted in Genesis. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, as we believe Him to be, we cannot dictate the terms of His gift to us, otherwise we are questioning His supernal qualities and making Him one of us. If he really is one of us, however, we really don't need Him, do we? We can handle matters quite well without Him, can't we? If we do so, however, we are playing God ourselves, and unfortunately we are just not that good at it.

Consider the following quotation then guess who owns it.

Today, however, civilization has brought sympathy, pity, tenderness and other lofty and worthy sentiments, which interfere with the law of natural selection. We are now in a state where our charities, our compensation acts, our pensions, hospitals, and even our drainage and sanitary equipment all tend to keep alive the sickly and the weak, who are allowed to propagate and in turn produce a race of degenerates.

Give up? Those are the words of the patron saint of feminism, Margaret Sanger (you won't find them on the website of Planned Parenthood, the institution she founded, nor will you find mentioned the fact she accepted an invitation from the K.K.K. to speak about the very "problem" of which she wrote: the "race of degenerates"). The "civilization" and the attendant qualities she questions are, of course, Christianity and Christian charity. I would not accuse +Butler of espousing such hideous notions as Sanger's, he surely does not, but unless one is uncompromising when it comes to the sanctity of life, it is all too easy to slip into thinking thoughts as, "Surely God did not intend this person to suffer so" or "Isn't keeping this poor soul alive costing a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere?" Thence leads to the murderous philosophy of Utilitarianism and its weaseling proponents like Peter Singer (a professor of bioethics at Princeton!) and from there it is but a short journey to Final Solutions.

I have a cousin who was born paralyzed from the neck down but blessed (or cursed) with a first-class mind. The difficulty of her life I cannot begin to fathom but she bears her burden well and manages to possess a wicked sense of humor. Still, I wonder if +Butler, upon witnessing the protracted suffering my cousin has gone through in her life would think that it would have been better she had not been born or allowed to live. I hope, at least, he would ask her first.

Just Because You're a Bishop Doesn't Make You God

A commenter on Whitehall links to a piece in the Daily Mail (UK) about a bishop in the Church of England, the Rt. Rev'd Tom Butler of Southwark, who officially speaking for the Church proposes that doctors be allowed to let sick newborn babies die: that "there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die." While this may seem a reasonable point of view to the compassionate, if casual, thinker, in reality it is a dangerous notion and, unfortunately, all of a piece of the New Religion: that God should serve the individual, not the other way around; that if a dogma results in suffering, the dogma is faulty and must be revised, for God does not intend for us (me) to suffer. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

As Christians, we must believe life is a gift, the greatest gift, from God, as recounted in Genesis. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, as we believe Him to be, we cannot dictate the terms of His gift to us, otherwise we are questioning His supernal qualities and making Him one of us. If he really is one of us, however, we really don't need Him, do we? We can handle matters quite well without Him, can't we? If we do so, however, we are playing God ourselves, and unfortunately we are just not that good at it.

Consider the following quotation then guess who owns it.

Today, however, civilization has brought sympathy, pity, tenderness and other lofty and worthy sentiments, which interfere with the law of natural selection. We are now in a state where our charities, our compensation acts, our pensions, hospitals, and even our drainage and sanitary equipment all tend to keep alive the sickly and the weak, who are allowed to propagate and in turn produce a race of degenerates.

Give up? Those are the words of the patron saint of feminism, Margaret Sanger (you won't find them on the website of Planned Parenthood, the institution she founded, nor will you find mentioned the fact she accepted an invitation from the K.K.K. to speak about the very "problem" of which she wrote: the "race of degenerates"). The "civilization" and the attendant qualities she questions are, of course, Christianity and Christian charity. I would not accuse +Butler of espousing such hideous notions as Sanger's, he surely does not, but unless one is uncompromising when it comes to the sanctity of life, it is all too easy to slip into thinking thoughts as, "Surely God did not intend this person to suffer so" or "Isn't keeping this poor soul alive costing a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere?" Thence leads to the murderous philosophy of Utilitarianism and its weaseling proponents like Peter Singer (a professor of bioethics at Princeton!) and from there it is but a short journey to Final Solutions.

I have a cousin who was born paralyzed from the neck down but blessed (or cursed) with a first-class mind. The difficulty of her life I cannot begin to fathom but she bears her burden well and manages to possess a wicked sense of humor. Still, I wonder if +Butler, upon witnessing the protracted suffering my cousin has gone through in her life would think that it would have been better she had not been born or allowed to live. I hope, at least, he would ask her first.

Well, That Didn't Take Very Long, Did It?

"We're just as sleazy as the Republicans." Speaker-To-Be Pelosi gets off to a good start.

Well, That Didn't Take Very Long, Did It?

"We're just as sleazy as the Republicans." Speaker-To-Be Pelosi gets off to a good start.