Dear Stan,
As a follow up to the pro-abortion "Catholic" politician row, here is a link to an article in the ever-excellent Touchstone magazine with reveals the chaotic and divided attitudes to abortion within US Christian churches. Yet again it highlights the vacuity of so much well meaning waffle on the importance of "Christian unity". If we cannot get agreement even on this issue, what on earth can "Christians" agree on?
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-02-039-c
The old saying "Divide and conquer" springs to mind.
I am also reminded of an article in "Faith" magazine years ago. It looked back to a very different Britain in late 1949 when there had been a lengthy exchange of letters in "The Times" on the subject of Church reunion. In one letter a Catholic bishop had courteously but firmly explained why Catholics and Anglicans could not logically say the Lord's prayer together. They would attach different meanings even to phrases such as "Thy Kingdom come". In this phrase a Catholic would be praying for the world wide establishment of the Catholic church, while the Anglican standing beside him in Christian fellowship would be praying for...er, something else, probably vague in the best Anglican tradition. Such a straight forward and clear thinking recognition of the real problems is absent in the ecumenical droning from modern pulpits.
This basic confusion and reluctance to face bedrock principles is evident this week, with the debate in Parliament on a Private Members Bill to remove one of the few remaining legal pieces of "discrimination" against Catholics. The heir to the throne cannot marry a Catholic without losing the right to secede to the throne. (This became a very faint possibility in the 1970s when Prince Charles' name was paired with Princess Astrid of Luxemburg, who is Catholic. Nothing came of it and she married someone else). But the "discrimination" against Catholics was ignorantly denounced as if it was the equivalent of racial discrimination. After all, no law explicitly forbids the heir from marrying a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or an atheist on pain of disinheritance.
Yet a fundamental issue of principle still exists and cannot be wished away on the basis of modern whims about "injustice" or "discrimination". Hardly anyone admits that there can be just discrimination. Admittedly British Airways can still discriminate against blind pilots and our hospitals are not forced to accept the mentally disabled as brain surgeons - well, not yet. But only one or two people pointed out one blindingly obvious fact. What if the heir Prince William marries a Catholic and they bring up their children as Catholics, as the Church has always demanded? The monarch after next will be a Catholic head of an Anglican church.
Fortunately the Bill has failed. But the fact that it could even be introduced and waste Parliamentary time and media space speaks volumes about the shallowness of understanding in this country of basic principles of religion and morality.
It is another aspect of the problem I described in an earlier blog. Just about everyone denounces pedophiles as viler than the vilest of the vile, Beasts, Monsters, hanging's too good for them..... But hardly anyone has a coherent understanding of WHY it is wrong and why our enthusiasm for total sexual liberation for adults leads inevitably to the sexual abuse of children.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Randall Terry - Archbishop Burke Discussion
Dear Stan
I am reminded of the time my Canadian friend declared in horrified disbelief: "You never heard of Wayne Gretsky?" Well, no. Hardly anyone in England has. Ice hockey just isn't a British sport despite efforts to introduce it. The only hockey played here on a large scale is on grass and mostly by girls and even that gets about as much national media coverage as the Chess championships. Most British people would be pushed to name a single grass hockey player, much less an ice hockey star. The British sports scene is utterly dominated by Soccer.
In the same spirit I feel singularly unqualified to jump in on the Randall Terry/Archbishop Burke discussion, seeing as I have never heard of either of these estimable figures before. But total ignorance of a subject plainly never discourages any British media pundits, so here goes. As the British newspaper motto goes: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
Based on about 15 minutes Googling, it seems the bruhaha centres on the attempts to publicly discipline Catholic politicians who have no qualms about supporting abortion - with Randall Terry leading a delegation to Rome to lobby various high placed Vatican officials on the visible infidelity of some American Catholic bishops in their attitudes to abortion and other crucial aspects of doctrine. I loved the title of the brief they presented to these title "Oves sine pastores" (Sheep without a shepherd). It is reminder of the Latin titling of encyclicals. Except that here the correspondence is going the other way from the faithful to the pastors.
Terry interviewed Archbishop Burke on videotape to discuss the attitude of bishops in denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. The Archbishops makes remarks that are clearly critical of those US bishops who do not deny Communion to such politicians. (That is assuming the substantial accuracy of the transcript I have read - see http://www.ahumbleplea.com/Docs/ArchbishopBurkeTranscript.pdf )
The Archbishop's statement (see http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/ ) of 26th March is plainly laughable and indicates that like so many senior clergy (most notably our own ludicrous Archbishop of Canterbury) he just ain't bright enough for the job. Once you have put your views on videotape and the videomaker has left the room, you have no control over how it is going to be edited, distributed or projected. Even if replays of the tape had just been restricted to a small number of pro-life activists, did he imagine that his criticisms of his fellow bishops would remain confidential?
The Archbishop's comments have plainly hugely and deservedly embarrassed many of the US hierarchy. Other clergy around the world must have similarly burning ears; what about those English clergy who accepted Tony B Liar into the Church in the face of overwhelming evidence about his long anti-Catholic record while Prime Minister, as I noted in an earlier blog?
It is heartening to see such militancy in the face of the abortionists. How far they can pursue other aspects of the campaign, such as publicly stigmatising any ordinary Catholic who voted for Obama...well, that is going to make any divisions between Latin Mas enthusiasts and other Catholics pale into insignificance.
I am reminded of the time my Canadian friend declared in horrified disbelief: "You never heard of Wayne Gretsky?" Well, no. Hardly anyone in England has. Ice hockey just isn't a British sport despite efforts to introduce it. The only hockey played here on a large scale is on grass and mostly by girls and even that gets about as much national media coverage as the Chess championships. Most British people would be pushed to name a single grass hockey player, much less an ice hockey star. The British sports scene is utterly dominated by Soccer.
In the same spirit I feel singularly unqualified to jump in on the Randall Terry/Archbishop Burke discussion, seeing as I have never heard of either of these estimable figures before. But total ignorance of a subject plainly never discourages any British media pundits, so here goes. As the British newspaper motto goes: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
Based on about 15 minutes Googling, it seems the bruhaha centres on the attempts to publicly discipline Catholic politicians who have no qualms about supporting abortion - with Randall Terry leading a delegation to Rome to lobby various high placed Vatican officials on the visible infidelity of some American Catholic bishops in their attitudes to abortion and other crucial aspects of doctrine. I loved the title of the brief they presented to these title "Oves sine pastores" (Sheep without a shepherd). It is reminder of the Latin titling of encyclicals. Except that here the correspondence is going the other way from the faithful to the pastors.
Terry interviewed Archbishop Burke on videotape to discuss the attitude of bishops in denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. The Archbishops makes remarks that are clearly critical of those US bishops who do not deny Communion to such politicians. (That is assuming the substantial accuracy of the transcript I have read - see http://www.ahumbleplea.com/Docs/ArchbishopBurkeTranscript.pdf )
The Archbishop's statement (see http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/ ) of 26th March is plainly laughable and indicates that like so many senior clergy (most notably our own ludicrous Archbishop of Canterbury) he just ain't bright enough for the job. Once you have put your views on videotape and the videomaker has left the room, you have no control over how it is going to be edited, distributed or projected. Even if replays of the tape had just been restricted to a small number of pro-life activists, did he imagine that his criticisms of his fellow bishops would remain confidential?
The Archbishop's comments have plainly hugely and deservedly embarrassed many of the US hierarchy. Other clergy around the world must have similarly burning ears; what about those English clergy who accepted Tony B Liar into the Church in the face of overwhelming evidence about his long anti-Catholic record while Prime Minister, as I noted in an earlier blog?
It is heartening to see such militancy in the face of the abortionists. How far they can pursue other aspects of the campaign, such as publicly stigmatising any ordinary Catholic who voted for Obama...well, that is going to make any divisions between Latin Mas enthusiasts and other Catholics pale into insignificance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)