tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post4756098346616422324..comments2024-03-29T22:00:02.999+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Messy Anglicanism?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66465309195621574282020-09-02T08:21:11.377+12:002020-09-02T08:21:11.377+12:00"We are back to the Greco-Roman world of the ..."We are back to the Greco-Roman world of the first century... It was those despised Christians who upset the world. I guess we belong to [different] religions, and there is little point talking past each other."<br /><br />Father Ron (and Peter), James's 12:15 gets near a point that I had meant to make today myself: <br /><br />some moral positions that have been beyond faithful doubt in the Body cannot be accepted in the same way by any secular society; <br /><br />every society has some moral norms that are obvious to citizens but at least doubtful to disciples.<br /><br />From the Resurrection to the end of time, there will be two discussions of every moral question in each place where disciples dwell. The best answers of each need not always clash, but they will never be the same. So when we take up any moral topic, we will be confused and possibly exasperated if we are not clear about which conversation we are trying to be in. In this connection, we might recall Romans 12 and St Augustine's City of God.<br /><br />Having had to contend with Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed princes, Protestants on the Continent have nearly always had the distinctness of the Two Kingdoms in mind. That early experience of pluralism has helped them to make some sense of postmodernity. Today's Radical Two Kingdoms (R2K) theology came not from a liberal divinity school, but from the most confessionally Reformed seminary we have, Westminster (Escondido, CA).<br /><br />But in England, the royal supremacy and the notion that the whole realm was a unified *corpus christianum* has led to such oddities as the once frequent use of excommunication as a penalty imposed on convicts by civil judges, and the duty of the Church to marry any couple and baptise any baby that comes in the door. Unsurprisingly then, Anglicans often have more trouble accepting that, until death, they must, and in fact do, navigate the rival claims of two Kingdoms.<br /><br />On the blessed isles, this rivalry may always have been obvious. But Episcopalians who think seriously only began to sort that out when John Howard Yoder in the 1970s, Stanley Hauerwas in the 1980s, the Yale School (eg George Lindbeck, Hans Frei) throughout that time, and above all Alasdair MacIntyre made it more obvious to us than it had been just how different Jesus-centered and rights-driven moralities must be. It's two different sets of mind, not just holy clobbertexts against saucy soundbites. <br /><br />In a consciously Christian conversation, the traditional evaluation of abortion is undisputed. We are only squeamish about recognising that when we fear the reaction of those among us who tilt hard toward a consciously secular morality. As also with That Topic, the tension is less over sex per se than over what it means in varied circumstances to live with confidence in divine providence, an indispensible part of belief in God.<br /><br />BW<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-85059150373066211382020-09-02T07:23:08.125+12:002020-09-02T07:23:08.125+12:00Thanks, James, for your several comments above. Co...Thanks, James, for your several comments above. Come back soon.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-2643297108017439832020-09-02T00:15:00.275+12:002020-09-02T00:15:00.275+12:00I really have nothing to say to people who don'...I really have nothing to say to people who don't see a problem in killing pre-born children or even neonates in Virginia. We are back to the Greco-Roman world of the first century where the abortion and the exposure of unwanted newborns were matters of personal preference ("prochoice") rather than morality. It was those despised Christians who upset the world. I guess we belong to other religions, and there is little point talking past each other. I am with Sister Byrne and the Catholic Church on this.<br />So long.<br /><br />JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16762400986044169682020-09-01T12:23:23.093+12:002020-09-01T12:23:23.093+12:00Father Ron,
Bishop Vaché was arguing that the 39...Father Ron, <br /><br />Bishop Vaché was arguing that the 39 are at least as valuable as Artifacts as they were as Articles. <br /><br />If there ever was a "problem of abortion," it was solved for the Body in the C2. Either we believe in providence, or we have lost our faith in the Creator.<br /><br />If there is a problem of miscarriages, what is it and for whom is it a problem?<br /><br />Beware the Rome Trap. Thinking Anglicans who fall into it become zombies who shamble along muttering idle gossip about Rome. Popes come, popes go. The librarian is not more important than the library. <br /><br />The president trades judges that anti-abortion voters want for the re-election votes that he wants. There are no illusions on either side of this transaction.<br /><br />As you say, he has real problems with affirming. <br /><br />BW<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10904901720538769712020-09-01T11:29:33.594+12:002020-09-01T11:29:33.594+12:00Thanks, Bowman, for your latest. I'm glad to l...Thanks, Bowman, for your latest. I'm glad to learn that someone else considered the 39As to have become the 39 Artifacts - for that, indeed, is what they have become - something not unlike the title 'Fidei Defensor' for the British Monarch. (one notes that the next Monarch want's to actually change this artifact to become 'Defender of Faiths'- plural)!<br /><br />Even Rome, from time to time, seems not averse to altering its own 'articles of faith' - but not yet believing that women could become priests, even though Pope Francis now approves of women becoming leaders in Church Administration.<br /><br />I don't think we have yet quite dealt with the problem of abortion - a term that has been translated for political reasons, especially in the USA, into the 'Right to Life' movement. However, I notice in recent communiques - from both Rome and the U.S. - that the 'Right to Life' inlcudes much more that the anti-abortion movement; extending, as it does, to the political separation of children from their parents at the border, and also to the right to access a universal health scheme for the poor - all matters that the current POTUS may have real problems with affirming (even though he campaigns as being 'Pro-Life'). We still haven't covered the eventuality of miscarriages!! Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27185341151811516372020-08-31T23:50:13.211+12:002020-08-31T23:50:13.211+12:00Good to hear from you, Father Ron
James's com...Good to hear from you, Father Ron<br /><br />James's comments just above can be read in a way that he almost certainly did not intend. Seeing that he would not comment further on abortion, I thought that a clarification might be helpful. <br /><br />*<br /><br />Neither contraception nor miscarriage is abortion. And the sub-apostolic fathers never said that they were.<br /><br />Does contraception frustrate providence? Many couples can testify from surprised experience that it does not! Anyway, they can use it to cooperate responsibly with God's apparent will. Think, for example, of parents who try to space their children so that they can be better parents to each of them. <br /><br />Especially in St Paul, but also in SS John, James, and Peter, morality for the aeon of the Resurrection is life in the Father's providence that, for those in the Son, is open to virtues induced and gifts given by the Holy Spirit. The apostolic Body adapts the law of the land to an interesting new use, but its own proper ethos is the transfiguration of believers in whom their old Adam dies and their new Adam forms (cf Romans v-viii). The C2 norm is closer to this C1 faith than to C20 neo-Scholasticism.<br /><br />*<br /><br />I have long wanted to tell you an anecdote about your favourite Artifacts. It comes from my second year of university studies.<br /><br />At the time, I liked several of the 39 Articles. But for reasons too subtle to relate here, I nevertheless did not think them quite right. Southern Virginia was and is somewhat evangelical, so we tended to take doctrine seriously.<br /><br />One evening however, the local bishops of TEC and the RCC visited our college for eucharist and dinner, and I found myself seated next to both of them. So I asked our diocesan about my quandary. I added that some could find it perplexing that half of us thought that we had just transubstantiated the host and half of us were sure that we hadn't. This got a chuckle from the Catholic bishop who had just given me communion, and a lively conversation ensued.<br /><br />Now although the diocese was snake-belly low, the Rt Rev Claude Charles Vaché was a celibate Anglo-Catholic. Quite apart from my own quibbles, I was curious to see what sense he himself made of the Articles. <br /><br />"Well," he drily began, "they're Artifacts. And what I mean by that is this: we use them an indicator of identity, not as a summary of truth. If your theology makes sense in this church as an organic development from the Articles in their totality, then you are one of us. For most official purposes, that is all we need to know... <br /><br />"So-- the Articles say that we do not transubstantiate, but as you say we just did it anyway. Doesn't matter. We-- and the Catholics too-- have absorbed their critique of the pre-Reformation mass. We have learned from the truth in them, and since truth about God changes people, we have evolved. Your experience of dissatisfaction with the very Articles you like best is the normal process of absorbing them to move on to something more complete... <br /><br />"You might ask why we don't just adopt new, up-to-date Articles the way the Presbyterians write a new confession of faith every generation or so. We do have a new Prayerbook with a new Catechism. But agreement with new statements of truth does not show Anglican identity as clearly as evolution from the old Artifacts. That continuity allows us to be more grounded and yet at the same time more searching."<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36623749329146316172020-08-31T18:48:56.416+12:002020-08-31T18:48:56.416+12:00Thanks, Bowman, for your comment on James' beh...Thanks, Bowman, for your comment on James' behalf. I do see where your argument is going. However, on the subject of any obstacle to the gift of procreation; how do YOU see the commonly-practised methods of artifical contraception. Is it for you, (and any other anti-abortinonists on ADU) equally condemned (with A.) as a sin?<br /><br />FYI I, myself, have a personal problem with the thought of intentional abortion, but I do countenance the fact that, in certain circumstances, it could be the better of two specific choices.<br /><br />AND THEN, of course, in nature, there is something known as 'spontaneous abortion' - Is that within the purpose and will of God, do you think?Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-14898264498717744652020-08-31T14:01:23.596+12:002020-08-31T14:01:23.596+12:00Hi Father Ron
Children are from God. For an expla...Hi Father Ron<br /><br />Children are from God. For an explanation of why Jews, Christians, and Muslims have not normally procured abortions, see my 11:58. It's not so much that an authority says one shouldn't get one as it is that, if one believes the creed with authenticity, then one is living a life in which one ordinarily could not want one.<br /><br />James has not said why he thinks abortion is wrong. From his comments just above, he seems to agree with the papal magisterium where it concurs with the scriptures and declares abortion to be a sin. He may not agree with it in anything else.<br /><br />James need not be a Catholic to be a catholic. He could believe what all catholics do, and otherwise think for himself. I suspect he does.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53292390925618142082020-08-31T13:53:49.714+12:002020-08-31T13:53:49.714+12:00Someone here (I think it might have been our Host,...Someone here (I think it might have been our Host, Bishop Peter) opined that perhaps gthe Anglican Communion could look to the GAFCON consortium as a preferred model of 39'Articular Anglicanism. <br /><br />This may well be so. However, I'm not at all sure that this is the true essence of the Anglicanism of Provinces of the Global North (small as we are as compared with the Global South) - whose theological trajectory has grown beyond the restrictive conservatism of the 39 Articles of Religion; embracing - as some of us do - the more contemporary understanding of God as Creator of ALL people, including those of infinitely variable sociological, ethnic, cultural and spiritual traditions. From being a Church intent on British Imperial colonisation; the Anglican Communion has become a family of very differing understandings of culture and traditions - each of which needs to be expressed authentically in its own local community.<br /><br />Granted there is a common basic ethical standard for all humanity. However, no longer can one national Christian Community demand cultural dominance over ALL other national Christian communities. The Christian Gospel, by its very nature, has to be intrinsic to its own local community - a situation that has only lately come to the surface (for Roman Catholics) in places like the Amazon Basin. 'Missa Puja" once criticised by Catholic purists, has had to be allowed to proliferate in countries where it is most clearly understood and appreciated. It is important, also, to remember that the diocese is still a legal entity, ruled over by the local bishop. Our Maori people have their own brand of Anglicanism - as do the people of the South Pacific, and the North American Indians. Cultural empiricism no longer has the hold on peoples of the world that it once claimed.<br /><br />This is why I think (and I could well be mistaken) that the 39-Articular Church has to be allowed to follow its own trajectory, while modern Anglicans must be allowed to continue the search for 'What the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church' today in its own situation. The spiritual hubs for these two types of Anglicanism could well be as far apart as Nigeria/Uganda and Canterbury/New York. After all, our commun unity is 'en Christo' - not any earthly (national) dominion.<br /><br />As an afterthought, it occurs to me that the Catholicism/Protestantism of Donald Trump has to be seen in the light of its singularity in situ - that of the current national/spiritual climate of the United States of America. This is unlike the Unity in Diversity that is distinctive to worldwide Anglicanism but rather; concerned only for its own national need to 'Make America Great'.Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37215705205930354592020-08-31T13:10:00.372+12:002020-08-31T13:10:00.372+12:00Dear James, just a tiny comment on your theology o...Dear James, just a tiny comment on your theology of abortion as an intrinsic evil: How do you preceive the validity of contraception? Do you have an equal repugnance to this prectice which does, after all, frustrate the single most important (R.C. theological) purpose of sexual congress? <br /><br />On issues of sexuality, do you hold (consistently) to the Roman Catholic idea of graduated sins (major v. minor) ? Are you a practising R.C.?Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20856312715249892542020-08-31T11:58:21.265+12:002020-08-31T11:58:21.265+12:00"The prolife movement has virtually no place ..."The prolife movement has virtually no place in the Democratic Party, which has become increasingly fundamentalist on abortion including abortion up to birth."<br /><br />Democracies govern with the consent of the governed. In America 2020, the governed will not ban abortion as the states did in about 1840-80. Republican majorities in a few states do occasionally pass odd laws that anti-abortion groups will reward but that cannot be enforced to enrage the actual electorate. Had the Supreme Court not expanded doctor-patient privilege to cover abortion, states would have continued to legalise the practice, and those that did not would have had quite interesting debates about reform of the laws they had.<br /><br />By default, Democrats have become a very broad party of government, now stretching from the centre-right to a post-socialist fringe. Republicans have hollowed into corporate interests, angry lost causes, and white left-behinds who cannot connect. So yes, the Democrats do have some noisy atheists among all the black preachers, and the Republicans do have some noisy anti-abortion folks among the corporatists libertarians. On the ground, these are all sincere and charming people. But the Sixth Party System within which they are all taking positions and choosing sides is not giving American voters two solid parties of government. That will have to change, but it is too soon to know just how it will.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-33209883290881105252020-08-31T11:58:00.465+12:002020-08-31T11:58:00.465+12:00"I'm a little surprised that you don'..."I'm a little surprised that you don't seem bothered by the ethics of taking unborn life..."<br /><br />I won't speak for Father Ron, of course. <br /><br />The sub-apostolic Body presumably found abortion abhorrent just as Jews did: they believed Creator --> Design --> Providence --> Procreation. Nothing fancy, just the basics we still teach small children and doctoral candidates. Modern science forced a new timeline for ensoulment, but otherwise modern anti-abortion is as Judaic hence apostolic as ever. <br /><br />Put another way, an evaluation that abortion is non-valued has to overcome the objection that it is not fitting in a life lived at peace with Providence --> Design --> Creator. That Judaic faith opens the faithful to the unbidden, to the ways in which the Holy Spirit closes some paths to open others, and enlivens spirits with the radical trust in the Lord to take them. Can an ethos adequate to the challenges of parenthood be derived wholly from instinct, self-interest and individual sufficiency? Only up to a point far short of what God desires.<br /><br />Disciples in the sub-apostolic Body found life in a community without abortion attractive. Inside, patiently trusting the Father's providence was better for the human spirit. Outside, he was glorified by the material life of the community that trusted him. They were excited to share with others a non-conforming Way that appeared to be a new race, neither civilized nor barbarian.<br /><br />Interestingly, although they were voters in the several cities of the Roman world, they never tried to get any of those to ban abortion. Why not? Centuries later, an imperial ban did come with Christendom. <br /><br />Like Jews, they believed that one Creator had one will binding all consciences, but also like Jews, they seem not to have tried to get unconverted Gentiles to live as they did. Even if they could have convinced pagans to try this, how could the majority in a polis or even Caesar himself oblige the citizenry at large to have that mystical Judaic entrustment to the unbidden? <br /><br />Today, renunciation of abortion may be a more exhilarating step into spirituality than ever, because our culture is so much more materialistic and technocratic than that of the Romans. (Which makes young Republicans like those I mentioned the other day interesting to meet.) But in what social space today does someone here or anywhere stand to do so? Churches today are not like Acts 2 or even the cooperating households of St Paul's mission. Where churches are just ritual and opinion clubs, they are only one-dimensional entities in our multi-dimensional lives. <br /><br />For that not at all good reason, Christians today misframe abortion as a state question when for us it is more properly as ecclesiological as oh the nature of holy orders. We are open to the Holy Spirit we invoke in ordinations when we materially are the space in which persons can trust the lead of that same Holy Spirit. Why do we not make room for this?<br /><br />In wealthy yet believing societies, a light chaplaincy with weekly services may suffice. But in antiquity, the Body had to be much more than that for several centuries, and we cannot assume that what was adequate early in Elizabeth I's day remains so late in Elizabeth II's. The only defect in Anglican orders is the absence of apostolic deacons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66599798749256279112020-08-31T09:43:12.865+12:002020-08-31T09:43:12.865+12:00“Looking more closely, it seems the Republicans ar...“Looking more closely, it seems the Republicans are pitching for the votes of traditional, churchgoing Catholics. That was my point.”<br /><br />And your point is correct, James, of course. There have always been Catholic Republicans. The last nationally prominent populist on the right was a Catholic senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy. The irony of 1960 was that, for the all the nuns on tiptoe at rallies for John F Kennedy, their bishops tacitly preferred Richard M Nixon.<br /><br />The Roman magisterium has teachings that each of the usual sides can love, and others with each of them struggle. Traditional, churchgoing Roman Catholics here up yonder have long been divided between adherents of Vatican I who love law and order and enthusiasts for Vatican II who love social justice, a memory of Pio Nono and a dream of Francis. In government we see that in the faith-based differences between William Barr (attorney general) and Nancy Pelosi (speaker). Among Supreme Court justices, we see it in the faith-based differences between Clarence Thomas (natural law) and Sonia Sotomayor (social justice). As the president’s campaign shifts from 2016’s populism to 2020’s authoritarianism, outreach to the most authoritarian Catholics makes perfect sense.<br /><br />Not long ago, I posted a comment here to make the point that both sides of the usual divide are not only observant, but demonstrably pursuing faith-based policies. This is especially easy to show with Roman Catholics because their tradition is well articulated and somewhat uniformly taught. We may not like the Catholic faith as a whole, or the way one side or both resolvesits inner tensions, but there is nothing so simple here as a battle between Catholics who believe and pray and Catholics who don’t do either. Over time, the most mature on each side will come to recognise their own faith in some counterparts on the other. Otherwise, it’s just the usual human food fight.<br /> <br />Protestants up here present a somewhat different picture for the reason I’ve given in the 2:52 just above: both evangelicals and liberals are constitutively poorly prepared for postmodern pluralism. Before our eyes, the former are decaying from witnesses to a universal truth to an embattled ethnic, even racial group, whilst the latter have become echoes of the post-Christian society of cosmopolitan cities and college towns. For all their social differences, their upstream deficits in apostolicity left them open to similar babylonian captivities. Meanwhile, the institutions that have served these constituencies experience interesting times.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81146818795811866132020-08-31T02:28:54.102+12:002020-08-31T02:28:54.102+12:00Looking more closely, it seems the Republicans ar...Looking more closely, it seems the Republicans are pitching for the voted of traditional, churchgoing Catholics. That was my point. They began with a Catholic priest praying, included Sister Byrne and ended with Ave Maria. Pretty clear, really, because Biden thinks he has the "ethnic Catholic " (i.e. nominal, non-attending) vote who are cool with abortion, as Biden is. Pennsylvania will be interesting to watch.<br />The prolife movement has virtually no place in the Democratic Party, which has become increasingly fundamentalist on abortion including abortion up to birth. For more than a generation now, there has been a growing chasm between the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party, once close bedfellows. <br />As I said, the Democratic Party is itself becoming more secular, reflecting the decline of religiosity within liberal America, on the west coast and the north-east. Talk of God has become politically and personally embarrassing for many within it, outside the black community, where revivalist cliches remain the stock in trade of black politicians, many reared in the black churches.<br /><br />James<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-11279322322601482742020-08-30T14:52:20.568+12:002020-08-30T14:52:20.568+12:00"I don't claim to understand liberal Prot..."I don't claim to understand liberal Protestantism."<br /><br />James, there are few who do understand it. The historical research into evangelicalism that began in the 1980s does not yet have its complement in a judicious, thorough history of the denominational liberalism that they so fiercely opposed. <br /><br />But they are quite similar in moral matters. <br /><br />Insofar as the Resurrection does not fund an ecclesiology in either tradition, neither believes that there is a true Body between the particular believer and the society at large. So evangelicals believe that they are entitled to a society that follows their biblical norms, and liberals believe that societies are entitled to churches that will teach their secular norms. Neither believes that the Body has norms of its own (eg against abortion) that an individual could not discover, and that his society could not imagine. As you know, the Body's morality was most of it in the early centuries.<br /><br />Because they share this deficit in Resurrection faith, evangelicals and liberals also tend to agree that individuals are not changed by grace, and that the capabilities of those in churches and on beaches are the same. That is, they do believe in justification by grace, but apart from the occasional Wesleyan, neither follows a revealed *paradosis* through sanctification. God forgives those who ask for pardon, but does nothing reliable to prevent them from erring again. Concretely, neither tribe can explain why people in the Bible fast.<br /><br />Which issues in a third point of similarity: evangelicals and liberals are equally estranged from St Paul's Resurrection ethos of virtues and gifts. Both tribes talk as though a Christian ethic can only be a code of disconnected rules to be followed especially solemnly. Consequently, there is a certain gutless, outside-in, conventional quality to both ways of being a Christian. <br /><br />So long as everyone in civil society was a Christian, these gaps were little noticed. In the pluralism with which most of us live, they are conspicuous.<br /><br />Are there no saintly evangelicals or liberals? Of course there are. But they are all the more saintly for have become so holy with so little help.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48669850333965503412020-08-30T13:09:51.592+12:002020-08-30T13:09:51.592+12:00"When a new young senator from Illinois named..."When a new young senator from Illinois named Barack Obama spoke in 2004..."<br /><br />"Btw, Obama was not yet a US Senator when he spoke at the 2004 convention. He got the speaking spot to enhance his own election chances in 2004."<br /><br />Barack Obama first addressed the Democratic National Convention as a senator in the Illinois legislature running for the Senate of the United States. That was an interesting year…<br /><br />https://youtu.be/AORo-YEXxNQ<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-14403327098346279452020-08-30T12:55:39.401+12:002020-08-30T12:55:39.401+12:00Thanks, James, for your references to Byrne and no...Thanks, James, for your references to Byrne and now McEneny. I'll take an interested look.<br /><br />But beware. Convention organizers book cause speakers to deflect voters’ suspicion that the nominee will not stand with their causes once elected. So, if a nominee is rumoured to kick dogs and eat cats, convention organizers will put an animal rights speaker on the program to testify to his abiding love for household pets. The speaker can be sincere and interesting about the cause without proving anything at all about the nominee. <br /><br />This year, there is no Republican Party platform, and the governing philosophy of the West Wing is rather unmoored. Some tokens of commitment to diverse constituencies at the convention were to be expected. <br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9119571912192854212020-08-30T08:02:40.431+12:002020-08-30T08:02:40.431+12:00I'm a little surprised that you don't seem...I'm a little surprised that you don't seem bothered by the ethics of taking unborn life, Father Ron, but then I don't claim to understand liberal Protestantism. I am one with the Catholic Church in this "obsession", as you call it. Science shows that life begins at conception, and the Son of God was conceived in the womb of the Theotokos. Maybe Protestants don't believe this, I don't know. Anyway, I recommend you look up the speech by the Catholic nun and surgeon Sister Byrne on YouTube. I'm sure the Pope would agree with her. That's all from me on this, no need to reply.<br /><br />James Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16459070625461795942020-08-30T01:00:14.012+12:002020-08-30T01:00:14.012+12:00And now the Republican National Convention ends wi...And now the Republican National Convention ends with opera singer Christopher Macchio singing "Ave Maria" from the balcony of the White House (youtube).<br />What will "cradle Catholic" Joe Biden say about this malarkey?<br />An obvious pitch to the observant Catholics of America. Will they turn out in Pennsylvania, Biden's birth state?<br />Mike Pence was brought up as a Catholic but attends an ACNA church. <br /><br />JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16559482495433248792020-08-29T22:00:28.238+12:002020-08-29T22:00:28.238+12:00James, I have noted your ohsession with abortion.I...James, I have noted your ohsession with abortion.I suspect that the Roman Catholic Church would, to a degree, have bypassed that problem for their own people had they not been so anti-contraception. I'm also not sure that the current POTUS would have any qualms against contraception - even though the main objection from the Catholics is that it is against the interests of procreation. <br /><br />Trump's own time as President has done little for the reputation of the U.S. as a democracy. Sadly, his 'Make America Great Again' could be seen to be based on obliterating democratic justice measures - that were introduces by Obama's government - by rescinding them and promoting his self-aggrandised authoritarian rule, backed by his own appointed officials. His public embrace of radically-motivated fundamentalist 'Christians' hardly bears public scrutiny - one of his most his allies being subject very recently to dismissal for 'sexual improptiety' by a prominent Christian UniversityFather Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90890510994708540672020-08-29T18:18:52.748+12:002020-08-29T18:18:52.748+12:00Btw, Obama was not yet a US Senator when he spoke ...Btw, Obama was not yet a US Senator when he spoke at the 2004 convention. He got the speaking spot to enhance his own election chances in 2004.<br />I challenge anyone today to say what exactly Obama achieved in his eight years as US President. As far as foreign policy was concerned, Obama was disastrous for the Middle East and for Christians especially - from Libya to Iran. <br /><br />JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-104118768690828412020-08-29T18:09:57.702+12:002020-08-29T18:09:57.702+12:00You really should watch Sister Byrne, BW - you can...You really should watch Sister Byrne, BW - you can find the excerpt easily on YouTube.<br />Also Kayleigh MacEnany speaking openly about her faith in Jesus Christ at the convention. Then contrast that with the growing hostility toward Christianity in the rank and file of the Democratic Party. Many delegates refused to say "under God" when eciting your oath of allegiance. So the issue is not just about abortion, which "cradle Catholic" Joe Biden enthusiastically supports (as do virtually all self- described Catholic Democrat politicians) - it is about any public role for Christianity in the United States. You cannot evade the fact that the Democrats are deeply secular in outlook. It is significant also that secular and nominal Jews overwhelmingly identify as Democrats and they are very prominent in the Senate.<br />As for Thomas Aquinas, he was beholden to Aristotle in his thinking on ensoulment, and the Catholic Church certainly does not follow him there.<br />Of course, the great irony is that "Black Lives Matter" has become the cliche of 2020 but more black babies are aborted than are born in the United States. So black unborn lives don't matter and Democrats will fight hard to keep things that way.<br />Btw, your suggestion that "some" ssa is caused by "molecular events in embryos" but we won't discover this until 2120 was disproved by new advances in endocrinology which were made in 2096. Futurology is a wonderful game! What did The Kinks sing about "Lola" in c. 1969? "Boys will be girls and girls will be boys, it's a mixed up, shook up world, says my Lola." And where are we now? The future arrives on kitten's feet. Just ask President in waiting Pete Buttigieg, of whom I think you have high expectations.<br />Father Ron, I hope you saw Sister/Dr/Major Byrne on YouTube- powerful Catholic witness on God's love for everyone, <br /><br />James <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34087108654580090762020-08-29T10:34:05.931+12:002020-08-29T10:34:05.931+12:00My guess is that Bryden is somewhat right, but tha...My guess is that Bryden is somewhat right, but that the sexual pendulum swings, not between discipline and license, but between disciplined capitalism and disciplined fecundity. Social morality rides the swing, and shallow churchmanship sits alongside it. <br /><br />So in the present capitalist extreme, people avoiding procreation feel no estrangement from those who can't or won't procreate. This has given us a rare modern moment of compassion for a long-suffering minority. But from the same mindset, harsh judgments on poor citizens who do procreate funds a class system that marginalises the poor rather than the queer. By definition, a secular society does not have the agape that can avoid the false choice.<br /><br />At the far extreme of fecundity where begetting and raising a child is seen as central to a life well-lived, nobody will doubt that a child you cannot raise should be put up for adoption, not aborted. Arguments to the contrary based only on individualist druthers will sound nearly as frivolous as objecting to face masks during a plague. Poor parents will be respected for helping us to raise the next generation despite the hardships they incur for doing it. But when sexual mores are again procreative-- mainly to help straight folk live more responsibly-- how will queer folk fare? <br /><br />There is no progress in this aeon. Different times are cruel in different ways, but all of them are cruel. Shallow churchmanship is itself compromised by the cruelty of the wind it chases, weeping for one suffering whilst needlessly deepening another in the shadows. But if resistance to cruelty were simply about lashing oneself to some mast of unchanging rules, then we would be condoning first trimester abortions and beggaring the misbegotten as we used to do. Societies do not progress, but knowledge accumulates, and we cannot evade our responsibility for what we know.<br /><br />Of course, a church that stands with her Lord opposes the cruelty of the time she is given. Alas, because that cruelty will be in a social blindspot, those busily bending churches to fit societies have often obliquely condoned it. Others will hear the call of Ezekiel xxxiii 8-9, but how should they obey that? You ask only for truth-telling, which is fair enough, but truth has a way of opening action. What should that be?<br /><br />Another guess-- agape enables the inspirited Body to have an integrative compassion that does not cast some into shadow to draw others into light. <br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80375973647227033452020-08-29T10:32:44.304+12:002020-08-29T10:32:44.304+12:00The curious thing about Anglican silence on the to...The curious thing about Anglican silence on the topic of abortion is that it is so precisely analogous to That Topic: both concern moral revisions driven mainly by modern science. Why-- there are many kinds of answers to this-- are we treating the two revisions so differently?<br /><br />Christians have explicitly opposed abortion from the C2. But traditional morality had assumed that God permitted induced miscarriages in the first trimester because he ensouled or quickened the fetus after that. St Thomas, who alludes to so much, somewhere attests to medieval belief in the idea. So into modern times, even pious households had recipes for abortifacients in the miscellany of their cookbooks. <br /><br />Not until the early C19 did advances in medical knowledge make that belief implausible. Once it was, modern laws were enacted in the late C19 against first trimester abortions. Thus the laws against abortion cancelled in the late C20 were, like SSM today, science-supported humanitarian mores just about a century before it. Of course, the scientific support for those mores has only gotten stronger as fetal consciousness comes into view and medicine secures viability for fetuses ever earlier in gestation. Nobody believes in quickening today.<br /><br />If That Topic were to follow the same trajectory, then about a century from now, the evidence that molecular events in embryos cause at least same sex attraction might be far beyond reasonable doubt, but it would not matter because some mighty social consensus we cannot now foresee would want to again press queer folk to the social and ecclesial margins. As with abortion, there would be a reluctance to break openly with today's compassion, but there would also be a certain reserve as societies and churches abandoned it in practice. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4376716871996545192020-08-29T10:31:03.460+12:002020-08-29T10:31:03.460+12:00Welcome back, James.
No, I did not watch much of...Welcome back, James. <br /><br />No, I did not watch much of either convention this year. As usual, these spectacles distilled each campaign's case for its candidate and against his opponent. But neither could show us much about how either would govern, my main concern. <br /><br />Nor could it show us much about the future of either party. When a new young senator from Illinois named Barack Obama spoke in 2004, the news was not that he was given a slot, nor what he said, but the applause of the delegates in the hall.<br /><br />Bryden Black, who sometimes comments here, has speculated that there is a slow pendulum in sexual mores, and that it has begun to swing back to the perennial norms. Maybe. Supporting that view: polls show that a formidable majority of young voters identify with the Democrats, but also that when the young do identify with the Republican Party, it is overwhelmingly because of its anti-abortion stand. Whatever party represents voters on the right in the future, it is likely to have an anti-abortion plank in its platform. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com