In excess of 300 years

Today, 8 February 2021, a band of us gathered to celebrate the 40th anniversary of our Ordination to the priesthood. [8 Feb 1981]

Our ordaining Bishop, then Archbishop of Adelaide, Keith Rayner at the great age of 91 celebrated The Eucharist with us.

[pictured here from L-R: Stephan Clark (me), Keith Brice, (not present...but in contact) Archbishop Keith, Ross Morony, Graham Head, Barry Davis...we are now all retired; not pictured here was  WarwickWinsall-Hall who was ordained a deacon on that day and was present...two Roberts who were also deaconed on that day were not with us for different reasons]

Then we went out to a pleasant lunch! (at the Feathers Hotel)

Together this small group of people represents more than 300 years of pastoral ministry! But I find myself feeling glad that these days this picture would have women as well as men!

And then again there are 4 walking sticks

[pictured here from L-R: Malcolm Thomas  (who was ordained in Melbourne around the same time) Stephan Clark (me), [Keith Brice, ( was not present...but in contact)] Bishop Keith, Ross Morony, Graham Head, Barry Davis...we are standing in more or less the same order but we are all looking 40 years older]

Some more reflections on the language of marriage

The Marriage Equality debate for me is one of social justice.
Everyone should be allowed to have a committed relationship which is protected by law and which might allow for the nurture of children.
I  ( and most other commentators) am not at all convinced (along with mainstream political and language/linguistic) theory that language is neutral.
Basically...you open your mouth, or your pen hits the the paper and you have already declared a whole lot of stuff that you you may or may not wish to have disclosed.
So The Marriage Equality (my preference) discussion is subject to all sorts of renaming..eg:

Gay Marriage
Same-sex marriage

These both suggest that there are different types of marriage.
Obviously 'different types' of marriage does not suggest equality!

As a Christian I am well aware that conservative, right wing groups do not represent me (see below).
They are very strident and specific about using exclusive terminology 
as long as we describe marriage with other descriptors eg same-sex or Gay   then we are capitulating to the idea that marriage is not a Universal right, or that there are different types of marriage. Which is nonsensical!

To me I reiterate:
Everyone should be allowed to have a committed relationship which is protected by law and which might allow for the nurture of children.

But let me also add a discourse about the dilemma for Christians...particularly those of us who are NOT of the narrow/fundamentalist/evangelical/Pentecostal, right-wing perspective




Let me not begin to treat on the so-called Australian Christian Lobby, (ACL) I have already made a number of posts here, and occasionally written a few letters to the paper (see below(1)) about this misnomer

They are indeed "Australian"...
but "Christian"  is not an accurately inclusive descriptor...most ACL members are one or more  of evangelical, fundamentalist and pentecostal.
This may be a controversial statement...they (ACL) are no doubt Christian, but are they Universal (ie representative of ALL Christians)?  I would suggest No!

Indeed I, and many others in mainstream Churches are not only unrepresented  by ACL but at odds with their narrow, legalistic, moralistic, puritanical version of Christianity.
Which seems to me at odds with the Jesus who welcomed prostitutes, sinners and tax collec
tors

In traditional parlance  the universal term for all Christians is Catholic (not Roman ...which is only part of the Universal)
The Catholic Church consists of ALL Christians (not just the Roman). The ACL is certainly not representative of that Universal Church

________________________

(1)Extract from: Letter to the Adelaide Advertiser 12/9/16

I do not identify with conservative and fundamentalist Christianity.To caricature all Christians as being steadfastly opposed to this change is wrong. I suspect that proper investigation would surprise the community at large. The church of ordinary folk is much more tolerant than its caricature.So who then will receive the ‘equal funding’?.  I ,certainly, am not happy for extremist conservative Christians (the Australian Christian Movement & Family First, for example) to represent me, and do not believe that in any sense they represent 'the Churches'.  They are not  the representatives of Australian Christians.

\

(1)Extract from: Letter to the Adelaide Advertiser 12/9/16

I do not identify with conservative and fundamentalist Christianity.

To caricature all Christians as being steadfastly opposed to this change is wrong. I suspect that proper investigation would surprise the community at large. The church of ordinary folk is much more tolerant than its caricature.

So who then will receive the ‘equal funding’?.  

I ,certainly, am not happy for extremist conservative Christians (the Australian Christian Movement & Family First, for example) to represent me, and do not believe that in any sense they represent 'the Churches'.  They are not  the representatives of Australian Christians.

Marriage Equality---

This is a reblog of a post from September 2014

I had a very thoughtful and charitable letter from A who "respectfully disagreed" with my views about same-sex marriage.
I think it is now better to call it "equal marriage"
I wrote in reply

A
Thanks for your response to my blog
I have made a number of posts over the years …you may not have tracked them all down
On my blog a link might be:
http://stephenclarks.blogspot.com.au/search?q=gay+marriage

I have a high view of marriage, [ this may surprise you] and part of my discussion about equal marriage opportunity is about encouraging commitment, morality and in particular an environment in which children may be nurtured  with the assurance of love and security. This latter principle is one that is explicitly stated in the Anglican marriage services.
It does seem to me that the gender of the parents is secondary to the parents’ commitment to love each other. This is the primary environment out of which children will know that they are loved. And in that love to allow the children to know that they are loved.
We are all well aware that many homosexual people live immoral lives…..I want them to live committed, decent lives.
Sorry,
I could also re-write that statement :  

We are all well aware that many heterosexual people live immoral lives…..I want them to live committed, decent lives.
I have experienced a couple of extraordinary things in the last year. A homosexual couple (male) who have embraced twins into their lives. They seemed to think it was going to be a breeze, and it wasn't…my observation is that it has transformed their relationship. They are deeper people, more loving, more capable of embracing carefully the lives of the fragile.
Most gay people do not “choose to be gay”…they are born that way.
Did God want them to live a life doomed to failure? With all due respect, I don’t think God is like that. God does not make life particularly hard for 10%…!

It is not as if we have a God who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses! (Heb 4:15)

I do not think homosexuality is a weakness, any more than heterosexuality is. We struggle with both! We are after all made in God's image. Male and female God created us, ...is it too presumptuous to say "gay and straight" God created us!

A great Bishop

The bishop belongs to all.
Let no one be scandalized if I frequent
Those who are considered unworthy
Or sinful. Who is not a sinner?
Let no one be alarmed if I am seen
With compromised and dangerous people,
On the left or the right.
Let no one bind me to a group.
My door, my heart, must be open
To everyone, absolutely everyone.

The Most Reverend Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

former Archbishop  of The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife

This is taken from the installation of Bp Katherine Jefferts-Schori many years ago as the American Presiding Bishop

She has in my mind been a great leader during difficult times. Her time is coming to an end.
There is much to be thankful for about her leadership.....
...refusing to be bullied
...remaining steadfast in the faith
...and apart from all that   seeming to command a sense of humour

Online polls

I was more than bemused to see that stupid little survey "Voteline" (usually on the second letters page of the Advertiser) a few days ago.
It was about marriage equality and it said 700+ were opposed to same-sex marriage and only 20 or 30 were in favour.
How can this be? Particularly since almost every other poll for the last three years has told us that at least 66%...and up to 75% and more are IN FAVOUR of same-sex marriage.
Well, of course, it is the mad methodology. I have blogged about this before (see here for one (but not the only) example)
Yesterday's poll (for example) about the very serious question "Should the Reserve Bank drop interest rates?"   49% of people said yes...and 51% said no. Wow!

Now 49% (on this occasion) was actually 24 phone calls! And 51% was 25 calls!
How can this be? There were over 700 phone calls about same-sex marriage!
Ahh yes, I get it now. Vested interest. Swamping.

It rather exposes how this "Voteline" methodology is fundamentally flawed. It tells us that there in no control (a fundamental concept in statistical analysis), because there is nothing to stop vested interests 'swamping' the protest.
My dear former student D de L was no doubt pretty active, along with his FOL colleagues
It is ALWAYS the case that when the questions have a strong political dimension, either Leftist or Rightist, then the number of phone calls increases dramtically. Not usually up to 700+....but it's the same phenomenon I suggest

Of course there are now all sorts of important polls online. One is the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy & Legal Affairs survey on the two Marriage Equality Acts (2 Amendments: Bandt and Jones at the 2nd reading stage)
If you would like to fill this in then go here  https://www.surveymk.com/s/spla-marriage
I mention this because there was some concern from one group I belong to that there was 'swamping' going on.  This (as I said above) is the great flaw in the methodology.
They were encouraging marriage equality supporters to fill in the survey...this is allegedly attempting to redress a balance, but is of course also skewing the results.

A few of my more Churchy readers may also be interested to know that I have also filled out the Crown Nominations Commission Advisory  quiz about the next Archbishop of Canterbury! (see here)...it says

" In the past only Primates and Provincial Secretaries of the Anglican Communion have had this opportunity"
and indeed it also says
"Cette opportunité était auparavant réservée aux Primats de la Communion anglicane." & "En tiempos pasados solamente han tenido esta oportunidad los primados de la Comunión Anglicana:" & "No passado, apenas primazes e secretários provinciais da Comunhão Anglicana tiveram essa oportunidade"


(interesting that the French and the Spanish only refer to the Primates/Primats/ and do not make reference to the provincial secretaries!!  as do the English and the Portuguese)


Does at least tell us something about the cosmopolitan nature of the Anglican Communion/Communion Anglicane/Comunión Anglicana/Comunhão Anglicano....one would also want to add various other languages...Swahili/Korean/Japanese/Mandarin/Cantonese/Arabic/Melanesian/Australian(!)/ u.s.w.....


I suggested that it was a pity that such a catholic Communion was not looking beyond the British Isles for the leader of this polyglot Church!

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.

Not all Moslems are the same

The use of the term “Moslem” is an inaccurate and unhelpful description in this ongoing multicultural debate. There are Moslems on all continents and they are any number of different nationalities.
I happen to be an Anglican, and that is perhaps a more accurate cultural descriptor than the word Moslem. Particularly since even American Anglicans (Episcopalians) seem to be a bit "Englishy". And although it is difficult to describe us as one cultural group we all seem to have a certain reserve, perhaps a certain tolerance for difference, and perhaps we are quiet people ....but things are not like they were 20 years ago

But no one would dream of primarily defining my cultural heritage by my religious affiliation. There are, incidentally, in the quite small Anglican community in South Australia people from all continents and any number of different nationalities. Just like the Moslems!

Orthodox political thought

In the last week I have had a bundle of political information but only two direct requests to make 'information' available to the people of our church community.

Now, the Anglican Church (despite often being otherwise characterised ) is not politically homogenous. It has often been characterised as "the Tory Party at Prayer"...or sometimes more whimsically (referring to the Anglo Catholic section with which I identify) as "The Communist Party at Mass"!

The reality is that we are theologically, socially and, most certainly, politically a heterodox community. It's often observed that our one defining characteristic is that we are all totally different...and we respect each other's right to be so.

This doesn't always make for easy living, but it does make life interesting.

So at times of election I try to be careful to not promote the line of one particular party, though many people would know and/or guess that I lean to the left.

The two requests to make the policies of particular parties known have actually come from other religious groups. One from an agency which promotes Christian Pastoral support Workers (formerly called chaplains) in state schools. Their advice is about the one issue of funding. Though they also urge people to write to their local member (of any persuasion) about the issue. This latter action seems to me perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to be seen to be promoting one or other party in particular.

Given, also, what I note above...that Anglicans cherish difference...it would be a mistake to make the assumption that we are all particularly sympathetic and think the same way.

The second solicitation comes from a party which clearly identifies itself as a Christian Party-even though when it suits them electorally they back away from that association, though it is clear that Family First seeks to draw support from mainly conservative evangelical churches.

Such churches probably do not tolerate theological diversity in the way that the Anglican Church does!

It would seem that they also have a fairly narrow conservative political agenda. I don't have any particular problem with people being conservative. What I do object to is the use of descriptors that seem to claim there is only one Christian viewpoint.

Thus when they put out a Christian Values Checklist (see here for similar information) it is for me some what problematic.

Of the 15 points on this particular document, which seems remarkably like the document put out for the recent State election...even though it claims to relate specifically to the Federal parliament..I don't have problems with some (possibly 6 of the 15....) but I would take exception to the bland statement that some points clearly represent "Christian values"

Item 3 for example : Support parental choice of schooling with education vouchers is clearly not a specifically Christian value at all

Of more concern are those matters where I actually think the value is not Christian at all

Item 4 'Protect marriage' (quite happy with that...but it goes on) 'oppose Relationship Registers for same-sex couples'

To my mind this flies in the face of the freedom that God gives to us in the Gospel. I don't dispute that many Christian, perhaps even most won't agree with me. But while I want to protect marriage I don't think that opposing same-sex marriage is the key strategy. What about providing adequate childcare, support for new parents etc. etc?

In fact I want society to stop acting prejudicially against people simply because they are gay. Where is that Christian value.

Item11 also want to prevent same-sex couples from having access to IVF and adoption

There is an agenda here. But to my mind it is not a Christian agenda. It is an anti-gay agenda, and I find no Christian value on this 'checklist' about protecting gay people from discrimination.

Quite the reverse. Items 12 & 13 promote narrow religious privilege with regard to vilification laws and anti-discrimination legislation....that is they want religious groups to have the right to be intolerant and discriminatory in a way that no other sector of society can be allowed to be so. I just think this sort of narrow seeking of privilege is so against the spirit of Paul's teaching about being responsible citizens that it is shocking.

So, I won't be issuing their narrow political advice in the name of "Christian Values"

A

The cost of justice

The ongoing dispute between the Diocese of the Murray and its Bishop , Ross Davies, (here) has taken another step towards resolution. Though, I guess this his been going on for nearly half a decade.

The toll on the Diocese seems astronomical and warns us about the enormous, potentially paralysing, cost of an hierarchical system.

That is, a system where one person or office can virtually hold the whole structure to ransom.

It would be inappropriate to comment on the Murray case, given that the case is now in session; save to say

that if part of a structure is found to be dysfunctional, or that other parts of the structure can't cooperate with it then obviously it is good to be able to stand that aside for the time it takes to work it out.

The trouble with a hierarchy which has a one-person pinnacle is that if that pinnacle is the problem you can't replace it until it's found it needs to be replaced. We don't even have a way of placing a temporary stand-in in place.

It is something that needs to be looked at, as there seems to be an increasing number of possibilities for dysfunctionality

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

Casting ravioli before swine

Fr Tim Jones, a priest in York, England was quoted as suggesting that it may be OK for the poor to shoplift from large supermarkets. In a bizarre little twist, amidst huge public outcry, one of his parishioners bought a whole pile of tinned ravioli, hid outsid the church and tipped the messy stuff all over the erstwhile vicar. Said parishioner was apparently 'outraged'.
I must admit I am not. One of the great problems for the Anglican church is that we are so middle-class that we are more likely to be outraged by the assault on our supermarkets by the unwashed than to be outraged by the thought of some people being so poor that they can't afford to eat.
Having grown up just after the War in a family which was no doubt poor, I can happily say that we (kids) didn't really know or care that we were poor. But as we grew I realise that there were things which were hard for my parents to provide us which other kids took for granted. This was not, as the middle class so often assume, because my parents were poor providers; but rather because there were many kids, both my parents came from modest families...so there was no inherited wealth...and my dad was the only bread winner.
As I grew, I realised that one of the things about Anglo Saxon society is that no one thinks or declares that they are well-off. Everyone thinks their families only have modest incomes. This seems farcical to the really poor, because we can spot that though the next rung up the ladder declaim that they are 'poor' we think that families that afford music lessons, overseas holidays, cars even in those days, and certainly private education have a lot more stuff than we did.
The middle class in particular, thinking they are poor...but mistaken in my view, have no conception of whta it might be like to not actually have any savings, or any security or certainty about what will happen for the next week because there is no food and no money.
My question, which Fr Jones attempts to answer...is just what are the poor supposed to do when they have no money, and no way of accessing services. (Had a chap like this came knocking at my door on Boxing Day!)
We can say ...they should have been wiser, saved more. But I think often we just don't understand what it is like to be poor.

A necessary evil

The ABC reports that besieged Bishop, Ross Davies, of South Australia's Diocese of the Murray will be "charged" under internal church proceedings. (here).
It is always easy to misinterpret what is going on here. And it is very sad for the Bishop, the Diocese and particularly the good and faithful folk of the Murray (which stretches from the southern suburbs of Adelaide to Mt Gambier in the South East and Renmark in the east Riverland).
It has gone on for some years now and is probably best characterised by the expression 'breakdown of relationships'.
The basic problem for the Anglican Church is that each Diocese is really independent and if there is need for external arbitration there is not necessarily any outside authority that can do this. Although the most obvious line is to the principle Bishop (called the Metropolitan...who in this case is the Archbishop of Adelaide), I think Bp Ross has some question about whether this line is correct. But we shall see.
Don't hold your breath waiting for titillation, it is likely that the argument will be in this area of 'relationship breakdown'. Like marriages which breakdown (mea culpa!) this will be the sad litany of disappointed expectations on both sides.
The truth is that this cannot go on forever, (without destroying the Diocese). Most people don't realise how fragile these small country Dioceses are...and as unpleasant as it may be....the Archbishop will reluctantly have to try and do what he can to sort it out. Hopefully it can be resolved. But it won't be happy, pretty ...but it is necessary.

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.

Let's confess!

A very nasty case that is before the courts at the moment of alleged sexual abuse by a former Anglican priest (see here for The Australian's report) reminds us all that the ground has shifted in the reporting of these matters.
There is a bizarre caricature that alleged perpetrators might "confess" their sins to an authority figure and thus render the matter confidential. In an Adelaide court 'Archbishop' John Hepworth, a former Roman Catholic priest, and then Anglican priest...but now the leader of one of the many splinter groups (see here for a former blog about this) formed in the reaction to a whole range of issues...particularly the ordination fo women to the priesthood...
Any way Hepworth gave testimony at the trial revealing details of a phone conversation which once upon a time might have been considered privileged. I do not need to go into the nastiness of it here.
What is now the case is that people (by and large) cannot now claim that any conversation with a priest is 'confession' by definition.
To be covered under 'the seal of the confessional' the matter must be a deliberate and intentional confession, stated to be so before the event and not afterwards.
Some of the Anglican Church's guidelines (I don't know about Hepworth's mob...) suggest that in matters to do with child abuse that the 'seal' no longer holds any way. This has yet to be tested, but there is some sympathy with the idea that mandatory notification now extends into the confessional. (I would find this idea difficult and hope personally that I never have to test it)
This stuff is awful. But I think weare trying to take it seriously.

When, I ask, will the State actually adopt the same scrutiny to schools and institutions that it demands (and rightly) of the Churches.

Off to Lodge!

Some people will be surprised to find that some Anglicans think of themselves as Catholic rather than Protestant. In a world that alleges tolerance of everything I have always been aware that those of us who think of ourselves that way have been regarded suspiciously by others, and often treated intolerantly...in the name of tolerance you are not allowed to be partisan.
This afternoon some of us are gathering together to talk about this. I am not a great "joiner" these days and will not join something which is going to serve no useful purpose other than to soak up a lot of time. We shgall see how this new 'lodge' looks...The Society of Catholic Priests

History in the making

Today Kay Goldsworthy will be consecrated a bishop in Perth.(here)
Non-Anglicans will think this non-remarkable, some Anglicans will be cross, others of us will just praise the Lord. As I do!
The ordained ministry of women is not flawless, but then neither is that of men.
I am still of the belief that an ordered ministry that is not discriminated on the basis of gender is better for the Church and, so far as I can discern, more in accord with God's design.
There are those who say that the ordered ministry is not the possession of the Anglican Church but of the church universal. They have a point. They would conclude that therefore we are not at liberty to do anything with the practice of Order that is not in accord with the worldwide Church, particularly in its Roman Catholic and various Orthodox manifestations.
To my mind that just does not hold water, throughout history from the earliest days of moving beyond the original group of nominees (apostles) that Christ personally chose, the community has had to develop and grow.
If you read Acts 1 this momentous decision was made by tossing a dice.."And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles"
Since then, we've wised up and realised that the Holy Spirit might be available to guide us.
Bishops have not been perfect throughout history. We could mention one word...Borgia...and that argument is sealed.
The Church has had to grow, change and correct. Some times dragging and screaming!
Hopefully more postively than just growing out of evil and excess.
I give unashamed and unabashed thanks that this move looks Spirit-filled and in accord with the movement of God.
Hallelujah!

Let us gaily tread the measure

A prize for recognising the quotation in the title, without Googling!
Any way, I am confused.
Some will not be surprised!
Channel 9's Today Show this morning was going into orbit and making much of the fact that Brisbane's "Churchie" school would not allow boys to take same sex partners to their formal. Even the good Archbishop Aspinall allegedly had weighed in saying the school had the right to uphold its values.
The pompous Cameron Williams kept reiterating that Churchie had the right to insist on its 'Anglican values'.
He seemed to to think that such a value includes the right to discriminate against people on grounds of their sexuality.
Not without controversy according to Williams' Wikipedia entry (here) he kept insisting that that was his viewpoint and blow everyone else.
The man is a sport's commentator for heavens sake.
In valiantly wanting to preserve Churchie's right to do what ever it likes (I wonder where he went to school) he kept insisting that 'such people' can always go to another school if they don't like this sort of discrimination.
Apart from the fact that that argument is obviously riddled with holes, I would maintain that the Anglican position is not that boys are not allowed to have friends of the same sex.
And indeed I would think that whilst most boys might want to take a girl to the formal, some wouldn't...and why should they?
It is of course one of those things about which there is a lot of wind.
Thank goodness the Courier-Mail has a much more measured account of what might be taking place (here) [and it' s really interesting to note that they have 873 comments on this story so far ...10 a.m. CST)

At last

It depends how you calculate it, but it has actively taken between 30 and 60 years for a woman to be consecrated in Australia.
Now at last we hear that Archdeacon Kay Goldsworthy will be ordained a bishop on May 22nd .
I don't need to relate the immediate events of how this has happened the ABC has a reasonable report on it here

Christian and Anglican and Catholic and Traditional and ......

I am happy to use all the above nomenclature to describe myself, though some would have thoughts on whether I fit some, any or all of these descriptive categories.
But that's by the way.
I had an interesting conversation yesterday with John Hepworth, former Roman Catholic priest, former Anglican priest and now the 'Archbishop' of the so-called 'Traditional Anglican Communion'(here).
We were both emptying our mail boxes at Blackwood Post Office! Hepworth actually lives within the geographical bounds of my parish, and has a small conventicle which ironically (but perhaps prophetically) used to be a Congregational Church!
The church now styled, strangely, St Etheldreda in the Hills reflects, I suspect, Hepworth's fascination with the quaint ways of Anglicanism. It has a sign outside which indeed says "Traditional Anglican Communion"; a euphemism for one of the groups of breakaway churches of the last three decades. My question is how can a church which has broken away from its roots describe itself as 'traditional', how can a church which is clearly not in communion with the See of Canterbury describe itself as 'Anglican' (No! Hepworth did not get an invitation to Lambeth); and which actually defines itself by removing itself from the 'Communion' be so described.(I have railed about this before..here)
On a pragmatic level I constantly get asked what St E's is all about, and have to tell folk that it's nothing to do with me...I tell them to go and have a look and suspect that most traditional Anglicans of my ilk would find little that would sit comfortably with their sense of being Anglican at all. They are of course anti-women's ordination. They seem to be opposed to modern language liturgy. And they like to dress-up!
Hepworth (strangely, given his origins) aggressively seems to court the Roman Catholic Church...and what he styles "the now famous letter" to the Holy See to seek some sort of recognition for his mob from the Roman Catholic Church is apparently the substance of active consideration in and around, before or after the Lambeth Conference.
I have no way of knowing how seriously the Roman Communion takes that letter, or how concerned they might be about taking Hepworth(and others) back into their bosom
In his inimitable way he talks of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope as 'Rowan' and 'Benedict' respectively, as though the three of them are equals.
Which I imagine in his mind they might be!