An obsession

I have never for a moment doubted that I lie within the Apostolic Succession  though I don't imagine anyone else could care less.
Apostolic Successsion! [ that is: the idea that Jesus chose disciples who chose disciples, who in turn chose disciples who chose the next generation of  disciples  ( what's called in Maths a Geometric Progression!)....and so on for 2000 years!]

It is a way of keeping in touch with the idea that what we are supposed to be on about is not our business but the business of Jesus, as Jesus handed it down.

Some have interpreted this very mechanically;
in particular Jesus chose his apostles who chose other people who chose others and they chose others..........and so on.

I don't even begin to suggest that Jesus had this idea in mind!

This "choice" is signified by the laying on of hands  by  a person who has (in their turn) had hands laid upon them,  who before that had hands laid upon them..... (A Bishop)

It is not hard to imagine that all this has got out of our  imagining.
There are people who can list their succession, like a complex family tree, back to the Apostle Peter. And you can find certain sites where these are listed  with incredible detail ; detail that we must understand is more wishful than truthful!  
[But there is ultimately  no credible documentary evidence for the Bishop Martyrius (457 CE) and the subsequent transition to Peter II (464 CE).... and many more of the lines]  

There is every now and then an attempt to correct the "succession" by ensuring that present at a Bishop's consecration is someone who is clearly in "the line of succession". In particular, Anglican/Episcopalian Churches have linked up with Old Catholics of the Union of Utrecht who have 'regularised' Anglican Orders. There is in my mind no real need to do this.....the objections of the Roman Church as stated in the rather shallow Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae...that Anglican Orders were "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void!" have been seriously critiqued  by prominent Romans ( eg Cardinal Basil Hume )
And the great Scholar JJ Hughes argued that it was essentially a good thing for the Roman Church to formally invalidate Anglican Orders; as it exposed the paucity of scholarship  and process, and indeed the whole idea of Apostolic Succession as a mechanistic transition of God's grace.

While there is some  sense in the ideas, in the end God is not going to be confined by the sort of legalism that mechanistic transmission conveys.

And, as I said in line 2... I don't imagine anyone else could care less. Certainly not God!

More remarkable

I am glad that the stuff about Xenophon and Hepworth is sort of petering out (see my original blog).
Alexander Downer would no doubt be bemused to find that I agree with him about anything, but writing in the Murdoch Press today he has a fairly measured analysis of the process and principles of the use of Parliamentary privilege to name individuals.
Perhaps one highlight of his article is detailing his drive in southern Cyprus and coming across the church of St Xenophon! It's easy for all of us to make barbed comments.
Reflecting on Sunday last on the need for Christians to reflect the generosity of God I said (perhaps tongue in cheek) to one of my parishioner-friends that I had been unusually generous during this week of confusing controversy about John Hepworth. I noted that in the first conversation I had with anyone about the sad state of affairs I had to say to a bunch of fairly aggro-people that we needed to remember that the first principle of abuse is that we presume the alleged victim is not making this up.
Now, I recognised that this required of me an openness to Hepworth that I may not always have had. He is a very difficult person to like if you are not on the same side. But that is probably not the point.
His appearances in the media have not been pleasant to watch and listen to, Julia Baird did a very skilful interview on on ABC radio's Sunday Profile last night....this can be heard here.

I can see your house!

Today is St Peter's Day. I have a deep affinity with this very flawed apostle. It is easy to idolise him (as the Roman Church seems to have done) and make him into some sort of early Church super hero.

In reality he seems to be a bit thick, he is pretty variable. And just wants to be loved.

This might explain my affinity.

Religion and the polls (i)

I am personally pleased that the leaders of both major political parties in the Federal Parliament appear to be serious and practising Christians.
This is a change from the sort of wishy-washy tokenism that we appear to have had (which, by the way, Anglicans are used to) of leaders who say they are Christian but who are at pains to show that they do not have any meaningful attachment. Sadly they have most often called themselves "Anglican" as a sort of establishment stamp. But their analysis of matters religious and how this might affect day to day life is often simplistic and dismissive. John Howard was a classic example of this sort of Anglicanism.
So in comes Ruddy who not only seems to be an Anglican, but seems to know about it, and takes it seriously. He is often pictured going to Church and seemed to even smile when he came out as if he might have actually enjoyed it. Most un-Australian!
My impression of what really happens is that the Canberra gallery knowing where he would be at 10.30 on a Sunday morning habitually lined up for a door-stop outside St John's Church and Kev obliged.
Then the Opposition began to feed into our Australian wariness of anything pious and started suggesting that this was staged and, indeed, not what ordinary Australians do.

I am, of course, pleased that Kev has stuck to his guns. Which is what you would expect if he does indeed take his Christianity seriously.

Tony Abbott, too, has made no secret of the fact that he is a serious Catholic. Though he constantly equivocates (as in the Murdoch press today...."I do not regard myself as a Christian. I regard myself as a politician who just happens to think religion matters.") lest we think some how his Catholicism informs his conscience! I think this is bizarre.

He is, perhaps a little unfairly, constantly asked about the issue of abortion and whether he accepts contemporary social attitude or enforces catholic social teaching. There has of course been reason to explore this since he has made no secret of his anti-abortion stance and the fact that he is clearly at one with Roman Catholic teaching about matters such as the 'morning after pill'. This seems to me to be a much more potentially explosive matter than Rudd's attendance at the Eucharist Sunday by Sunday.

....more coming

The trappings of imperialism

I think that many Australian Anglicans will be shocked by news that the Roman Catholic Church seems to be actively progressing the establishment of an Anglican Ordinariate (a sort of Anglican Church within the Roman discipline)[see an article from a Roman Catholic source here].
Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, Peter Elliott,(pictured) would appear to be responsible for establishing such an ordinariate here in Australia, and last week Forward in Faith (AUSTRALIA) passed a generally worded motion welcoming this.

Now it seems (and needs to be said) that FIF is not an organisation of the Anglican Church. (I think some object to this assertion). While no doubt some Anglicans are members, others are former Anglicans, indeed David Robarts the National Chairman is a Bishop of the so called "Traditional Anglican Communion" -a breakaway group with issues about the ordination of women and often certain curious allegiances to the Book of Common Prayer of 1662- often they seem to have more in common with the the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, and the pre-Reformation Anglican Church.

I have had romantic attraction like this myself to a sort of ultra-montane Catholicism which is more a figment of the imagination than a reality.

I am interested in the use of language and what it conveys. I note the FIF motions for example (here) they are conciliatory and almost weak in their intent.This is classic Anglican use of language...as one former Primate would say "on the one hand...but then again on the other hand"

They say

( on the one hand ) That this Special General Meeting of FiFA receives with great gratitude the Apostolic Constitution “Anglicanorum Coetibus” of Pope Benedict XV1 .....(but on the other hand) we give notice as to the establishing of Friends of the Australian Ordinariate and invite members of Forward in Faith Australia and other interested persons for expressions of interest by provision of names and addresses at this meeting, or by contacting the Chairman, noting that this does not commit interested persons to joining the Ordinariate.

This is classic Anglican meeting procedure...we do something parallel which doesn't offend those who might not quite want to go that far! And always allow the way out.

I contrast that rather with the some what imperialistic tone of Bishop Elliott who refers to the Pope as "Pastor of the Nations" offering special dispensation and beneficence ("reaching out to give you a special place within the Catholic Church") to the naughty little children who have finally come home to Daddy.

This is a far cry from the language of the 70s and 80s in which Anglicans steadfastly referred to ourselves as "sister churches" rather than daughters..and occasionally the Romans agreed. But we seem to have gone back to an earlier time. White gloves and all!

At some point we Catholic Christians, Romans and Anglicans have got to realise that it is not about dressing up!

sleight of hand

One of the ways the churches have tried to deal with offences by members of the clergy is by moving offenders away from the scene of the crime. It is a pretty draconian and certainly cynical strategy.
It assumes that the church can be saved embarrassment not by bringing offenders to (ecclesiastical) justice but by some sort of sleight of hand which moves offenders out of the public eye.
As a strategy it has worked quite well, from the church's point of view; those who have committed offence, say, in Melbourne might be moved to Perth where they were not known. And have begun again.
The only problem is that what often they have "begun again" is more of the same. The Church (and here I refer to the church of all persuasions, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Uniting Church...you name it) has discovered that they have granted forgiveness, moved people on but they have continued with their manipulation, exploitation and humiliation of individuals.
Even if they have not offended in the same sort of gross way this moving-people-on has denied those have been "sinned against more than sinning", the right to confront an accused and, as it were, have their day in court.
That the Churches still think they can do this sort of cheap sleight of hand is reprehensible. I suspect that in the next little while we shall hear of yet another priest who has been moved from one jurisdiction to another in the Roman Catholic Church. To what purpose?
I make no comment on said priest's guilt or innocence, though only months ago he was claiming he would cooperate fully with local enquiries, and now would appear to be moving himself outside the purview of the local scene.
It is astonishing that the Roman hierarchy would cooperate or encourage this sort of practice in the modern day.
If said priest has been found to be without fault then let that be declared, do not try to just shuffle him to another part of the pack in the hope that he will escape detection. He deserves nothing less than a declaration of his innocence if he is such.
His victims deserve nothing less than justice and compassion if he is not.

What's in a miracle?

I think the danger for most people when we focus on someone being, what the Roman church calls, 'canonised' or made a saint is that we either make too much of it or too little.

Too much, in the sense that we all become obsessed with the process and curious 'proofs' required. In particular the demand for two verifiable miracles. (There is an interesting little flair of letters in Mt Gambier's Border Watch here)

The Anglican church, being a church not only of Catholic extraction but also of the Reform lost the process of canonisation in the 17th century. It was not until we felt at liberty to change our liturgy that we also felt free to revise the list of saints. That was the 20th century. By then the English Church had moved to all ends of the globe. And the quaint saints of the pre-Reformation days who had survived into the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 seemed very remote indeed here, for example, in the Antipodes. Even though we had fondness for Chad, Aidan, Wilfred and Hilda...saints of the British Isles.. local lists, calendars or suggestions began to emerge and were formalized in different ways and people like the Missionaries martyred by the Japanese in New Guinea, J C Patteson, pioneer bishop of Melanesia, Florence Nightingale, Dietrich Bonhoeffer...and many others came to attention.

Fortunately, we never became obsessed with the sort of legalistic process which demanded miracles. Choosing rather to see 'saints' as just ordinary Christians who happen to have died. (Most Christians, after all, do believe that biological death is not the end of our life in God...so we think of those who have died as being with God... what ever that might mean)

That these people might pray for and with us is what the New Testament seems to talk about...the writer of Hebrews says we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses...

It would be easy to allow this to become too little. Because the truth is when you look at someone like Mary McKillop she is an absolutely extraordinary women. Totally committed to care for and serve the poor, she refused to be cowed by powerful and angry men (we call them 'bishops'--sorry Jeff!...) not because she was just a difficult woman, which is how they often characterised her; but because she was so totally committed to working out her Godly vocation in serving the poorest of the poor that she would not allow anything to stand in the way of that call.

What she then achieved was ... well you could call it miraculous... education for those who no one could give a stuff about. No one, that is, other than Mary and her sisters.

In more secular times she would have been "Australian of the Year", but she is worthy of being on the list. True Australian respect for authority...that is open to be challenged if it stands in the way of justice and truth.

The non-Christian might admire her as an historical figure. Personally I think she is part of the great cloud, and is praying like mad for those who love and care for the poor and marginalised. And her work is continued by many of her sisters, and those who (whether RC or not) are inspired by her example. The miracle proof is coincidental to my mind.

Oh the intrigue!

Most people will not be in the slightest bit bothered about the latest round of gamesmanship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.
This week Mr Ratzinger announced he would appoint an 'ordinariate' (you have to love the language) for disaffected Anglicans who want to become RC but who don't really want to stop being Anglican... well maybe that's what it said... quite a lot of these people are "closet Romans" who for various reasons have lacked the opportunity/gumption/clout/guts to leave the Ecclesia Anglicana and become Roman Catholics. Not the least of the reasons for doing this might be that Anglican clergy are often, even usually, married. So if you want to become (or remain) a priest this presents a minor difficulty. I say 'minor' because in the end nothing defeats the bureaucracy of the Roman Church...even its owns rules (Ask Henry VIII)
So there are a wide range of people who might be interested in this proposition
1. Those who have already separated themselves. The so-called Continuing Anglican Churches for example. They appear to have been wetting themselves to get back into the flock. Their current leader actually resides in my parish (I have blogged of him here). "Archbishop" Hepworth happens to have been a Roman Catholic priest who became an Anglican and then who left and joined the splinter Church. He claims to lead a worldwide group of 400,000 disaffected Anglicans.
This in itself is an interesting figure, I would be interested to see how they arrive at such a figure. And particularly interested to see them substantiated in some properly audited way.
I have my doubts!
Some of the members of that church have colourful pasts, and are perhaps a little fractious and argumentative (aren't we all). I wonder if the Romish Church knows it all! I suspect they know more than they let on.
2. Disaffected Roman Catholics There was a titillating suggestion that a whole host of Roman Catholics who would have been priests may now try to enter through the Anglican Ordinariate. This would be amsuing!
3. What of the loyal Catholics? I remember a dear RC colleague telling me of how many fine male friends she had who would have made wonderful priests, and who felt saddened when Anglicans who were married were able to do what they were forbidden to do because they were loyal to the Holy See.
4. What of the complicated marriages? As one whose marriage fell on hard times what would the Roman Church make of people like me. I could (indeed do) function as a celibate person. Though technically married, surely separated Anglicans (continuing or otherwise) would be eligible to join this ordinariate as long as they didn't marry again.
Or what of those whose may have been divorced and remarried, perhaps even had their marriages 'annulled' by a schismatic continuing Church and then got married again. There are probably some of those.
I can actually think of three lots of former Anglicasn who became RC, all of their marital (and other) relationships appear to have been stressed. Even become irregular and dysfunctional
I just hope the Vatican knows what it is letting itself in for.

All that glisters

It's great fun to be able to watch movies galore during the holiday season. We enjoyed National Treasure 2 (albeit an insignificant romp of little artistic, film or literary merit) of far greater significance is The Golden Compass touted to be the next best thing since Lord of the Rings. It has attracted some attention for being 'anti-religious', a criticism I find laughable really.
It is after all a story and a fantasy at that. (But read one prominent review here )
Of course, as such, it presents a different cosmology, and indeed theology. In so far as it addresses the biq questions it is not going to agree with 'orthodoxy' of any sort.
What disturbs me about the round condemnations (the one quoted from the Sydney-Anglican-Machine but there are huge sledge hammers from the Roman Catholic Church doing the rounds also) is that 'authorities' seem to think that good folk have no brain and can't tell what is story and what is theology or philosophy.
They, of course, argue that this stuff is aimed at kids and that they may believe what they dont ought to!
What rubbish! In reality Wind in the Willows has talking animals, Sleeping Beauty has wisked witches...and don't start me about Enid Blyton and latent racism!
If we are going to protect everyone from everything by banning what we think is in some way unacceptable then we do them s disservice.
As a parent, it seems to me that what you want to give to your children is a not a cocoon but the tools to evaluate for themselves what is wrong. So after we saw the Golden Compass we had a bit of a talk about it.
I personally am not afraid of ideas, nor afraid of my children (or others) not agreeing with me. I do not have such an insatiable desire to be infallible, that I cannot bear the slightest eviation from someone's idea of orthodoxy.
If we do not allow people to be marginally wrong, how on earth do we ever explore anything?How can we expand people's consciousness? How can we develop independent thought in anyone?
This actually seems to be what this Movie is about. So let's not be so paranoic!

The problem of abuse

As the struggle of dealing with child sexual abuse in remote aboriginal communities continues, we should not be surprised that this stretches resources (here). The problem is deeper than we think, or want to admit.

An example of the extent of that this week is that we have seen the Roman Catholic Diocese of Los Angeles make an enormous financial settlement with victims of abuse in that Diocese over 50 years (here). Our own local Anglican Diocese has been struggling with this issue  for some years. And it does indeed stretch our resources.

It is important to recognise that while the provision of adequate law enforcement, compensating victims , and the need to start again are critcal issues and need to be dealt with well.

But they  beg the question of whether they are attempts at local containment of a problem that is actually much wider. 

This certainly has been a major critique of the aboriginal community focus. The indigenous people are an easy target, but what of non-indigenous communities.

None of my blog readers would imagine that I am  suggesting that we should not be throwing resources to support aboriginal communites. May they not be used to posture and paint power-brokers in a good political light!

Churches, too, are an easy target. Highly visible and outspoken, and good targets for the charge of hypocrisy. But do we imagine that abuse is limited to the church alone.

Certainly not!

My contention would be that there is a fundamental issue about MEN. Yes, men! 

Although there are a few isolated cases (readily sensationalised by a male dominated media) of women abusers the real problem is men.

We live in a society, both black and white, religious and non-religious which allows men, not all men, to believe that you have a good chance of getting away with abuse.

Now maybe we are tightening up on this.

But I don't want to have narrow 'easy-target' focuses when there is clearly a much wider problem throughout society.

Where are the resources for schools to address the teaching of programs to help boys become the sort of men we want them to be?

Where is the wholesale examination of why our legal system by and large fails to convict rapists and abusers (anything up to 85-95% perpetrators of vilent sexual attack are never convicted or brought to justice)

You see, it is easier to hit the soft targets, but the problem is much more extensive than that.