Saturday, 31 July 2010

Apple-v-Windows

I’m a long time and convicted PC user so my recent purchase and use of an iPhone 3Gs is a little surprising, even to me.

Windows Phones Didn’t Deliver
Over the years as phones have turned into PDA’s I’ve migrated from Palms to XDA’s running Windows Mobile. Sadly my last device was so unreliable that even answering calls was a lottery. Some of the programmes worked at first but almost immediately became erratic. It’s a pity because Windows Mobile offered a world of possibilities but it delivered a phone that drops calls and where the programmes rarely functioned reliably.

Why an iPhone ?
So when it came to choosing a new phone I knew the Apple OS had increased stability over window OS, chiefly achieved by limiting user choices and options, so I thought that I would trade flexibility for reliability. Although I had previously mocked the Apple OS for only recently introducing cut and paste I made the leap and purchased my first ever Apple device.

I'm Totally Blown Away
Using the iPhone has been a pure pleasure: it just works in a way that most windows mobile users have forgotten. I think that only if you've had an unreliable device can you understand the sheer joy of say a mapping programme working every time so you can navigate in an unfamiliar location.

Apps are really great
The apps or programmes are amazing and enable you to do easily what otherwise you could only do on a full size PC. I can take and post photos to my Facebook page, text whole groups of people, order a delivery from the Supermarket, check the news, use the integrated iPod, browse the Internet, twitter, watch BBC24, e-bay, e-mail, find my nearest church and order coffee capsules - and all of this without a crash or hitch.

Getting Older
It occurs to me that my new found love of the Apple iPhone, it's ease of use and the fact that it just works, might well be connected to my getting older. I no longer have the time or the patience to fiddle with the programmes.

Will I be switching to Apple for my PC ?
No, because they're far too expensive (both hardware and software), they don't do half the things I need to do and because there are compatibility issues for me.

Why am I writing this ?
Because I genuinely surprised by what a positive and great experience using an iPhone has been and I thought that I'd share the story.

Thursday, 29 July 2010

Benedict XVI - A Disastrous Papacy

No thank you
I've just very politely declined to be in the congregation at Westminster Abbey when Benedict XVI visits in September. Why ? Because I can't in all conscience give my support to the worst papacy in living memory. I would have been absolutely delighted to have worshipped along side John XXIII because he was a saintly reformer. But Benedict XVI is an altogether different character.

Misogyny with added intolerance
To have listed support for the ordination of women as a crime against the sacraments adds contemptible intolerance to misogyny. Trying to stifle discussion is symptomatic of knowing that the argument is already lost. Ostriches, sand and heads come to mind.

Anglican Ordinate an Ecumenical Disaster
Opportunistic interfering with the internal discussions of the Anglican Communion and the Church of England would never have been even contemplated in previous papacies. The discourtesy of not consulting the Archbishop of Canterbury was truly astonishing. 45 years of ecumenical work have been sidelined for offers to SSPX and FiF, which reveals Benedict's über conservative agenda.

Old Vestments and the Latin Mass
Perhaps we should have guessed what this papacy was going to be like when Benedict XVI began to wear old fashioned vestments and major papal masses returned to using Latin. People seem to have forgotten that the Roman Catholic Church was on it's knees and half dead at the time of the 2nd Vatican Council. The Councils reforms were absolutely necessary (literally vital) to the survival of the RC Church. To attempt, even a partial roll back, of Vatican II will result in serious decline; it's like a smoker who having survived lung cancer starts smoking again and proclaiming it to be the cure for his disease, the result is inevitable. Bringing back the Latin Mass is only the answer to the question - 'what could we do to make matters worse' !

So no thank you, I won't be pew fodder for Mr Ratzinger; his papacy is a depressing funeral liturgy.

Tuesday, 27 July 2010

What is it with TV programmes about the supernatural ?



Has anyone else noticed that whilst we live in an age of widespread disbelief and atheism there's a lot of popular entertainment about the supernatural ?


It's almost as if the reductionist and comfortless philosophy of 'this is all there is' has caused a desire or hope in the collective popular imagination which finds it's outlet in TV programmes & films about the supernatural.

I also wonder if this is connected with the collective dis-ease with organised religion and formal belief systems; it appears more acceptable to believe in speaking to dead relatives than the Nicene Creed.

Can we learn anything useful from this ? I believe so:-

Firstly most people are probably agnostic rather than atheist, waiting or actively looking for underlying realities and that which lies beyond the observable world.

Secondly people crave hope; the blunt message of atheism that people cease to exist is just not believed by many who hope that there is life beyond death and meaning to their existence.

Thirdly the church has failed to attract many 'hopers' because we're obsessed with formulas of orthodoxy as the very basis of membership. It's really very telling that we recite the 4th Cent Nicene Creed every Sunday, originally composed to refute the heresies of the early church and totally meaningless to most enquirers.

Fourthly if we were more like fellow travellers and enquirers and less like the Spanish inquisition people might want to spend some time with us. Absolute certainty and condemnation of those who don't share our views are deeply unattractive traits.

The harvest is plentiful but the labourers are few

Monday, 26 July 2010

Time to confidently reassert we're Catholic and Reformed

Current Climate
Those making the most noise at the moment are heavily criticising the CofE, denying it's catholicity, proposing we're about to become a protestant sect and recommending the Ordinate or full RC membership (oh yes there's a real difference between those two!)

Proclaiming the Positive
Somebody needs to be putting the positive side of the Women Bishops legislation in it's current form and reasserting the continuing Catholicity of the Church of England.

Apartheid is Ending
The 1992 promise to Parliament, as I understand it, was an honoured place within the church for those opposed to the ordination of women. Within is the operative word. In my mind that did not permit setting up a separate church within the church, pretending the rest of us don't exist or treating fellow Christians like lepers. So I view the end of FiF jurisdiction as a positive outcome; FiF'ers will have to rejoin the mainstream church and exhibit the previously lacking virtues of grace, tolerance and inclusivity. In return women bishops will no doubt with equal grace and tolerance follow a code of practice and transfer Episcopal functions to a male bishop when requested. The separate church within a church solution didn't work, was an ecclesiological aberration, a most unfortunate mistake and it's end is entirely desirable.

Facing the Future with Confidence and Vigour
It's now time for Anglo-Catholics to assert that we are the Catholic and Apostolic Church of England, proclaiming the faith of the scriptures and the catholic creeds. We are reformed because the church needs reformation when it is in error and disrepair. In so far as we are able to discern it the Church of England is the church in this country that is most closely following God's will and Christ's intention for his church and we say that confidently and without apology or qualification. It is God's will that women should be Deacons, Priests and Bishops and we lead the universal church is that discernment. We call upon all churches to admit women to the fullness of Holy Orders, without further delay.

Satori - a moment of realisation

Satori in Zen Buddhism is a moment of realisation or enlightenment after which nothing is quite the same.

I'm reminded of Satori by those bloggers who being heavily critical of the Church of England are advocating joining the Roman Catholic Church via the Ordinate. That's because becoming a Roman Catholic requires an assertion that every act ministry in the Church of England has been invalid: every eucharist, baptism, confirmation, marriage and ordination are according to Rome invalid. What a dreadful moment of realisation that must be ! (and let's be crystal clear that I believe this to be a totally false realisation)

The question I want to ask is: if you've had a moment of realisation like that how can you then continue to be a member of the Church of England ? Or more astonishingly how can you with integrity continue to minister in the CofE ?

Surely it's intolerable to be ready to repudiate your entire sacramental ministry whilst still celebrating the very sacraments you are now convinced to be invalid.

To spell it out: the gap between deciding to convert and ending your Anglican Church membership can't be too long. Long enough to make practical arrangements but not so long that any sense of integrity is mocked.

Posted from Blogium for iPhone

Friday, 23 July 2010

Papal Mass Only £25



Isn't it a sin to sell the sacraments for money ? I just wondered if the £25 it costs for parking and a 'pilgrim pack' at the UK Birmingham Mass was really just a way of cover up a 25 quid charge for a papal mass ?


Frankly I think it is just a cover up and that's it's particularly galling if like many Roman Catholics you've already contributed heavily to the cost of the papal visit via a special parish collection. Not only are you being charged for an allegedly free sacrament, but you've paid twice.


That's not quite right is it ?

Friday, 25 June 2010

An open letter to the Archbishops

An open letter to the Archbishops’ regarding their proposed amendments

Dear Archbishop Williams and Archbishop Sentamu,

It is with great dismay and disappointment that I read your proposed amendments to the Women Bishop’s draft legislation issued on Monday 21st June. I doubt there are many who will feel this offers good news. Far from being attentive to the full diversity of voices within the Church of England, these amendments suggest that you, our Archbishops, are primarily concerned with a particularly vocal minority. Neither do you seem to trust that the Legislative Drafting Committee have, in fact, been extremely attentive to the diversity of voices for the past year and have worked hard to come up with the current proposals. There is nothing to suggest, for example, that you are listening to the voices of those who signed petitions in 2008 requesting a single clause measure. Or those, like WATCH, who have made it clear that the proposed legislation already demands many concessions and compromises from the simple single clause measure they requested and which has been favoured by all other Anglican provinces who have chosen to open the episcopate to women.

There will be many who will be unable to support the proposed transfer arrangements and continual public undermining of women’s spiritual authority implicit in these amendments (paragraph 6), even if it means proceeding sooner rather than later.

The smoke and mirror strategy of giving jurisdiction by virtue of the Measure, rather than transfer or delegation in effect implies that the Church of England as a whole is ambiguous about the identity and authority of both Bishops who are female and male priests who accept their ministry. This is a dangerous precedent to set and leaves women in ministry vulnerable as they, along with every Christian, continue the battle against the principalities and powers of darkness but without the full support of the Church that recognised and authorised their divine calling to ordained ministry. It is a poor consolation prize to offer consecrated women fuller legal rights with one hand (para 15.1) while continuing to set up structures that call into question their spiritual authority (paragraph 13). The interpretation of the Lambeth Conference resolution (1998) which undergirds this proposal (para 2) fails to recognise that both those who assent to and those who dissent to the ordination of women to the priesthood are loyal Anglicans because what we hold in common; our love for Christ, our common identity as brothers and sisters in Christ, takes precedence over our disagreement over differing understandings of the Episcopal authority. Status as loyal Anglicans is not a carte blanche to demand special provisions.

I refute completely that the Church of England has managed to operate a practical polity (para 13). The practical polity is in fact extremely dysfunctional, cripples the ministry of women, in some diocese more than others, and has done nothing to bring about greater communion, but instead fosters division and discrimination and continues to damage the Church.

Many people on both sides of the debate have struggled with the Act of Synod because they are committed to making it work and will continue to wrestle with whatever General Synod manages to agree upon, because of their love for the communities this Church serves, often despite the toxic legacy of the Act. This is illustrated by the fact that Prayer Vigils will take place around the country, in Ripon, Guildford, Newcastle and Lichfield Cathedrals, during the General Synod debates, genuinely drawing together the diversity of voices to which you refer, but to whom you clearly have not listened.

Where ever the solution may lie to the question of how to bring about Women Bishops, I think it is unlikely to manifest itself in the creation of Church of England ghettos that will further isolate those who are opposed and fatally undermine the ministry of those who assent and have the unenviable task of making such convoluted proposals work.

Where are the proposals that will in fact ensure that we simply have Bishops? Consecrated because we have discerned God’s calling and gifting within them, regardless of those things that are declared unimportant in relation to our identity in Christ; race, gender, social status? Where are the proposals that will enable them to fulfil that role with joy, confidence and the minimum of hindrance?

When will the Church of England accept that to set up structures that implicitly infer that some people are less a child of God than others is just poor theology and a stumbling block to our proclamation of the gospel?

I realise that the sound of our church in great pain as it labours to bring something into new birth is difficult for you both, as our Archbishops, and for many others to hear. But it would be good for you to recognise that the expression of pain is not necessarily an indication that something is fundamentally wrong. The Church of England, through Synod, declared many decades ago that there were, in fact, no theological objections to women’s ordained ministry. I would like to see it support its statements with clear and unambiguous actions.

Your sister in Christ,
Lindsay Southern
22nd June 2010
21 Melltowns Green
Pickhill
North Yorkshire
YO7 4LL

Tuesday, 8 June 2010

I had hoped I wouldn't live this long



I've died and gone to hell ......

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Anti-Catholicism or Valid Criticism

Anti-Catholicism or Valid Criticism
I've noticed a tendency amongst a number of commentators to cry prejudice & anti-Catholicism at any criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. No doubt there are indeed a few people jumping on the band wagon, delighted at the failings of the worlds largest church.

This Affects Every Christian
But not everyone; because most of us know that recent scandals affect everyone. I've gotten strange looks on the tube / underground for wearing my clerical collar. I know unchurched people have draw less than charitable conclusions about the whole Christian community; protestant, orthodox, non-conformist, reformed and Roman Catholic. There will be jokes about clergy / priests and children for years to come. Generations of genuinely worthy work with schools, children and young people is diminished, probably permanently. Good & holy work is literally undone by this tragedy.

Combination of Offenders & Obsession with Obedience.
But it's not just the offenders who have caused such havoc; it's the institution's reaction that multiplies the effect. The Legionaries of Christ insistence on not criticising spiritual superiors enabled it's 'celibate' founder Marcial Maciel to have children (not families) with multiple women and to sexually abuse them. Making victims take vows of silence meant that it took decades to correctly identify the scale of the problem and address it appropriately. It's not just a few bad apples;- it's an attitude towards authority and covering up that magnifies the original offence.

Cover Up the Moral Equivalent of Collusion
In normal institutions these offences would have been publicised thus minimising the chances of recidivism. But in a heavily hierarchical institution, obsessed with obedience, with an eye on public perception; secrecy permits / enables recidivism. Isn't that moral collusion by delinquency ? (sharing in the evil of the offence by failing to take appropriate action) In essence a few individuals committed grievous offences but the institution of the Roman Catholic Church multiplied the offence by allowing recidivism (re-offence) and denying the victims true justice; as seen to be done. Thus hundred of millions of Christians are tarred with the same brush.

Illustration
The illustration above by Scarfe is a truly tragic comment on how the world now sees Christians and the church.

Sunday, 25 April 2010

Exclusive News of the UK Papal Visit


Obviously I'm not going to reveal my source for this; but I'm very happy to tell readers of this blog exclusively:-

Queen will meet Pope in Scotland
We'll be spared the sight of the Pope and Queen in London, with all the attendant pomp. Instead the Queen, who is not breaking her holiday, will meet the Pope in Scotland. I think a single picture of the Pope shaking hands with the Queen will suffice. This kind of low key, minimum publicity meeting is an excellent idea and avoids pictures and images that some (including me) would find hard to stomach.

Pope will go to Lambeth Palace
The Pope will go to Lambeth Palace to meet with Archbishop Rowan Williams. Again another great idea, it makes the point that the Pope is visiting an Anglican country where ++Rowan is the head of the established church. A picture of the Pope and ++Rowan in front of a portrait of a reformation archbishop will probably be too much to ask, but the symbolism of the location will do nicely. I'd advise Rowan to give the pope a 1662 Book of Common Prayer as they're somewhat keen on Anglican patrimony in Rome at the moment. Whether he'll read the 39 Articles on the plane home I guess we'll never know, but there's always hope.

Pope will go to Westminster Abbey
Of course it would be unthinkable for a visiting dignitary not to lay a wreath of remembrance at the tomb of the unknown solider; perhaps in the silent moment that follows the pope will reflect on his own part in he second world war. I'm almost tempted to go and watch. A guided tour of the post reformation Kings and Queens tombs would probably be in order too.

Pope will address both Houses of Parliament
Perhaps more problematically the pope will also address both houses of parliament in St Stephens Hall. I can't honestly see a big turn out from amongst MP's for this. My concern here is the UK giving the pope an official platform to promulgate his views and inevitably criticise the majority of us for not wanting to live in a Roman Catholic state. The thought that as a country we have collectively invited this man to address our parliament worries me; perhaps he can be persuaded to restrict his remarks, a befits an invited guest. If not I might feel impelled to attend and protest, as is my right.

Get a Grip !

The RC blogosphere is alive with indignation about the Foreign Office memo. So what's the problem;-

Can't take a joke ?
Lost your sense of humour ?
Too near the truth for you ?

OK - the idea about him opening an abortion clinic is a bit tasteless, but a papal brand of condoms and blessing a gay partnership are quite funny and thoroughly deserved considering the actual consequences of some Roman Catholic doctrine.

We shouldn't forget that opposition to contraception is not just a slightly nutty idea, held by a few religious fruit cakes it really kills people in Africa who are consequently exposed to HIV and Aids. Most health professionals know that availability of condoms would make a big difference to infection rates. The Roman Catholic teaching on abstinence is just another example naivety. Make no mistake, this doctrine kills people.

We also shouldn't forget the sheer hypocrisy of church whose clergy are predominantly gay by orientation (I've reliable RC clergy friends who put the percentage of RC gay clergy at between 75-95%) but who teach that being gay is intrinsically disordered.

The Pope can't be above criticism or his teaching beyond debate, it's a free country and the old deference is long dead, as he is about to discover when his visit to the UK is also marked by the prominence and presence of those who beg to differ.

Monday, 19 April 2010

Why I'm Voting Labour

I'm voting Labour because I remember previous conservative (Tory) governments and I don't want to live under that kind of regime ever again;-

Death of British Industry
The Thatcher regime ('79-'90) presided over the near total destruction of British Manufacturing Industry. Driven by the dog eat dog ideology of uncontrolled competition the government let British industry be savaged by low wage, low tech economies elsewhere in the world. They peddled the myth that a managed re-orientation / re-tooling for a high skill, high tech economy wasn't possible and the result was (at least) 3 million unemployed, tens of thousands of companies closed and the creation of huge industrial waste lands all around the country. British Industry died and we became of nation of financial services consultants, credit controllers and call customer care operatives.

War on Education
Thatcher hated the (mostly) egalitarian British education system and especially teachers, who were allegedly all part of a left wing conspiracy. Money was deliberately diverted from education, school buildings got into a terrible state, there were daily news stories of leaking roofs and classes held in unheated rooms and portacabins. The underfunding got so bad that parents were asked to buy basic teaching material and even children books. Thatcher wanted a vocational based education system that simply trained monkeys / people to work in call answering centers (and the like) and did not educate people beyond strict necessity. Learning for it own sake was anathema and Tory rhetoric against teachers reached Stalinist mantra heights.

End the NHS
In Thatcher Newspeak (Orwell 1984) 'The NHS is safe in our hands' - but the truth was very very different. Thatcher had an ideological hatred of a universal health care system as intrinsically socialistic; so the race was on to bring the NHS to it's knees whilst extolling the virtues of the private health care sector. Waiting lists grew, wards and sometimes whole hospitals closed, NHS employees were vilified (especially nurses) and all the while plush private wards and services prospered at the expenses of the NHS. The poor literally paid for the private health care of the rich, it was Robin Hood in reverse. The lowest point came when tax breaks for private health care were proposed; everyone was asked to pay for the private health care of the rich, unbelievable!

Get on your bike
Who can forget the Tory Employment Secretary, Norman Tebbit, telling the 3 million unemployed to get on their bikes and look for work? Whole areas of the country were in economic meltdown and unemployed people faced a lifetime without work, there was a tangible atmosphere in some towns of complete despair. Benefits for the unemployed were cut, and cut again and the unemployed were blamed for being lazy and not having a job;- the victim was blamed for the crime ! Tory spin doctors spread the story that Thatcher was 'upset' that people thought her (and the government) uncaring !

Tell Sid He Was Robbed
Any kind of business or enterprise that was owned by the people was up for sale on the cheap, partly to disguise underlying economic failure. When your gas bill is enormous, the gas company's profits equally enormous and most ordinary people no longer own shares in the energy companies you have the Tories to thank for that. When the banking system almost collapsed and British de-mutualised building societies were at the heart of the British crisis, you have the Tories (and the carpet baggers) to thank for that. This was always about big business getting it's hands on the peoples assets and never about creating a sharing owning democracy. As Harold Macmillan told us you can only sell the family silver once;- in our case it was sold cheaply, and we are still paying the price with every overpriced electricity, gas, water, train, and telephone bill. We were robbed.

War on ordinary people
During the last Tory government there was an unending list of different people / groups to be singled out and vilified in the press, legislated against and blamed for all the ills of the country. One month it was single parents, then gays and lesbians, then miners, then teachers, then the unemployed, then immigrants, then trades unionists, then Argentineans .... Strangely enough Old Etonians, stock brokers, company directors and the rich seemed immune from the latest group to be publically reviled and given a good spanking, funny that !

Poll Tax Riots
I watched the police clash with thousands of rioters in Trafalgar Square with open mouthed disbelief. I knew it was bad in Britain under the Tories and I knew the Poll Tax was both unfair (un-progressive) and unpopular, but I couldn't quite believe I was watching the nearest thing to a full revolution unfold on the TV news. Ordinary people were on the street along side the usual political activists and were angry at the arrogance of the Tory government's proposed poll tax. It was obvious evidence that the government just didn't care about the plight of ordinary people, it was driven by ideology and the interests of a tiny minority of rich people with high local council tax bills.

An Alternative Universe
At times during 79-97 I thought I wondered into an alternative universe where black was white, truth a lie and up was down. It was a truly surreal period;- almost like a conscious re-enactment of Orwell's 1984;- we were told we were getting better health care, better education, better transport, creating a share owning democracy, the economy was thriving and the 'Great' was being put back into Britain ! But we experienced the exact opposite every day.

The Tories Look After Their Own
You could sum up the last Tory government with the aphorism 'the rich got richer and the poor got poorer'. The interests of big business and multi-national companies were very well looked after with any kind of regulation, safeguard or law that hindered rampant profiteering immediately withdrawn. Entrepreneurs, 'Loads of Money' Stockbrokers and Merchant Bankers were hailed as national heroes. Make no mistake the Tories are backed by the rich and big business for a simple reason;- they look after their interests and place them before you and your welfare, every single time.

Cameron Isn't Different
Frankly I cringe when I hear Cameron saying the 'new' Tory party is now friendly to gays and lesbians because I remember clause 28 and government inspired campaigns of hate in the newspapers. I know that the 'Big Society' Tory manifesto theme is newspeak for massive cuts in government / social expenditure. You only need to look at those pictures of Cameron, Johnson and Osborne as members of the Bullingdon Club whilst at Oxford University to know that the Tory party stands for government by the elite in the interests of the few.

Labour's Record
I know that Labour have made some serious mistakes, in my opinion mostly by not being radical enough. However;- the NHS has new hospitals and wards, waiting lists are greatly reduced, patients have rights under the NHS charter, pay for NHS workers is better, new schools have been built, class rooms refurbished, teachers pay has increased, formerly publically owned businesses are at least regulated, unemployment is still too high but people also still receive benefits whilst trying to find a new job, single parents still received benefits, child benefit is still paid, old people get a winter fuel allowance and state pensions have increased. The Labour party isn't perfect, far from it, but it's a whole lot better than the Tory alternative.

I'm Thatcher's Child
If the tone and passion of what I've said surprises you; it shouldn't because I'm Thatcher's child. I lived through the 18 years of conservative government, it politicised and motivated me; I joined the Labour party, I worked hard day and night for a Labour victory in the 1997 election, I've organised elections for the Labour party and stood as a candidate. Thatcher made me a conviction member of the Labour Party for life. And when you look at the polls and can't understand why, with Labour being allegedly so unpopular, the Tories still can't win, there's a simple reason;- there is a whole generation of people, exactly like me, who remember what it was like to live under a Tory government and who consequently will never, never, ever vote conservative.


Monday, 12 April 2010

German cartoon offends some / saddens me

For those who haven't been following the sex abuse scandal in Germany, the latest twist involves Roman Catholics outraged by the above cartoon. The cartoon appeared in the satirical magazine Titanic, on Good Friday (of all days) and is suggestive of a sexual act.

I'm not disposed to be outraged by this kind of graphic criticism, I just think it's a powerful and very sad indictment; because the cartoon deliberately plays upon Matthew 25.40 'whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me'. Perhaps a cartoon echoing Mark 9.42 'and if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea'. would have been more fitting, but probably equally offensive to some.

Instead of getting outraged I would advise putting energy into reforming the church, ending the abuses of an obedience and secrecy obsessed hierarchy, drawing women and laity into considering disciplinary matters and calling for end to compulsory celibacy.

A spot of heartfelt and public repentance by those in charge, including B16, would go a long way to restoring the much damaged credibility of the church.

Saturday, 10 April 2010

7 Ordinations in England & Wales



I was very kindly invited for drinks with Roman Catholic Clergy at a London presbytery. As I looked around the room, half the Roman Catholic clergy were ex-Anglicans, which supported my long held intuition that really quite serious decline in the English Roman Catholic Church is masked by convert clergy, which combined with the influx of Eastern European Roman Catholics make things appear stable. Under the surface things are very far from stable; how many Roman Catholic Clergy were ordained in England and Wales last year ? The answer is;-

7

That's right, one more than six and one less than eight !. The CofE number is around 500 (can't be exact because I can't find the statistics on-line, but it was 500 in the previous year).

You can proclaim the glories of celibacy and how it's not at all to blame for paedophilia, you can proclaim the glories of the Latin mass and compare those who criticise the Pope for inaction with anti-Semites BUT people have voted with their feet.

I have Roman Catholic friends who KNOW that unless there is serious and deep rooted reform, of the 2nd Vatican Council kind, Roman Catholicism will collapse in the West within a generation, and that's not a wild assertion sadly it's supported by these kind of hard facts.

Half of FiF clergy to have retired within 10 years

As you've probably know some are seriously considering the possibility that women Bishops won't happen for around 10 years and that when it does happen it will be without any provision for those opposed.

That set me wondering what the church might look like in ten years time; which led me to start comparing FiF clergy with their age as declared in Crockfords and putting the data on a spread sheet. Oh my !

Here's what I can tell you:-

Forward in Faith Clergy

Average age 58

In 2020 (ten years time) 52% will be 65 or over

11% are 30-40 years of age
15% are 40-50 years of age
24% are 50-60 years of age
24% are 60-70 years of age
26% are over 70 years of age













Forward in Faith claim around 500 clergy members which includes retired clergy, this is roughly equal to 2.6% of C of E clergy.

Forward in Faith have relatively few new vocations, compared with the wider church. Projecting current vocations into the future, in 20 years (2030) Forward in Faith (C of E) will have only 125 working (stipendiary) clergy members.

None of this takes into account those who might leave for Rome.

My Conclusions;-

Punching above their weight
This is a group who punch far above their statistical weight, at 2½ percent they ought to be a small minority voice, but time and again they have made the national news and influenced decision way beyond their actual numbers. If they all went to Rome tomorrow, it could be business as usual in the C of E, because their actual numbers are insignificant.

Theology, Symbolism and Perception
Clearly the FiF hoo haa is more about theology, symbolism and perception than concern about the loss of clergy numbers. Is the inclusion of conservative Anglo-Catholics necessary for Anglican identity ? Would their departure damage the Anglican claim to be both Catholic and Reformed ? How do you balance the FiF wish to exclude women from Priesthood and Leadership (Bishops) against Women's right to be included and treated as equal ? If a working compromise can not be found, would it be so wrong to part company ?

Time & Demographics
As I've blogged before; FiF does not have time on it's side, the issues it seeks to raise are of a specific time and place, the issues of a singular generation. Not only will there be significantly less of them in 10 and 20 years but the church and world will move on. People shouldn't forget that the Holy Spirit is subversive; John 23rd was elected Pope and everyone thought he would be a caretaker and a safe pair of hands. He changed the Roman Catholic Church forever with the 2nd Vatican Council. In 20 years we could so easily have married and women clergy in the Roman Church.

Methodology
I used the clergy named on the Bishop of Fulham's web site and Crockfords Clerical Directory. My assumptions are that the Fulham Jurisdiction is typical of FiF and that the Times of London largely reports truthfully. If anyone wants to research and number crunch the whole of FiF to prove me wrong by a few percent, feel free. If I've made a serious statistical error I'll be delighted to print a correction, upon proof supplied.

Friday, 9 April 2010

Uganda and Bishop Elect Mary Glasspool

So Mr Orombi, the Primate of Uganda, has resigned from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion because he has heard that the North American Church doesn't persecute homosexuals properly or indeed enough.

Clearly he's under the impression that the Anglican Communion has the right to tell it's autonomous provinces how to behave and who the love (in both senses). If that were so the European and North American churches would long ago have demanded the removal of Archbishop Akinola for saying homosexuals were worse than 'dogs and pigs' OR we would have demanded the resignation of ALL the Ugandan Bishops for keeping silence when a law was proposed in their country criminalising homosexuality with the death penalty.

The Anglican Communion is a meeting or collection of autonomous provinces; there is no means of enforcing uniformity of belief or practice, get over it, ECUSA are perfectly entitled to elect who they chose as a Bishop and there is NOTHING you can do about it. That's the difference between Rome and Canterbury; one is about uniformity, power, and enforcement and the other is about respecting & understanding difference whilst trying to find common ground;- unity in diversity.

I'm not sure who is divorcing who here;- Orombi and Akinola don't want to be in the same church as Mary Glasspool, but frankly their beliefs bear so little resemblance to mine that I'm tempted to help them pack !

Wednesday, 31 March 2010

Full, open and blatant schism

On Maundy Thursday I shall go to our cathedral, renew my ordination vows, receive communion from my Bishop(s) and collect oils for use throughout the year, as will thousands of other priests, deacons and lay ministers across the country. It's an occasion that symbolises and embodies communion, in the full sense.

As usual every member of Forward in Faith (FiF) will be absent, having set up and attended their own, schismatic, chrism mass.

This leads me to reflect on the eve of Maundy Thursday, how exactly am I in communion with members of Forward in Faith ?

The answer is that I am not in communion with members of Forward in Faith ! They will not and do not received or share communion with me or my Bishop(s). Members of Forward in Faith have to all intents and purposes left, abandoned and deserted the Church of England, the only vestige of the their membership being the occupation of Anglican property and payment of Anglican stipends.

Does nobody share my outrage at this blatant act of schism ? Has everybody come to regard this as normal and acceptable ? Is this treating fellow Christians as if they've got a nasty communicable disease evenly vaguely Christ like ?

The irony of Anglicanorum coetibus is that Rome wouldn't accept this behaviour and schism for 30 seconds;- if Forward in Faith set up a separate chrism mass in the Roman Catholic Church, excommunication would be quickly followed by unemployment.

Whilst I love our church for it's tolerance and diversity I just really wonder how much longer we can go on like this ?

Pope to become Archbishop of Canterbury

Yes, you read that right ! On his visit in September this year the Pope is going to be the Archbishop of Canterbury for a day. See the article here http://bit.ly/9cdj5O

I wonder what those so keen to leave the Anglican church will make of that ?

I wonder what that means for Apostolicae Curae ?

I wonder what that means for Ecumenical relations ?

Frankly you can just ignore those shouting that ordaining women had killed ARCIC because the quiet truth is that there is great deal of respect for the Anglican Church in Rome. Many Roman Catholics know that women priests will come to Rome, sooner or latter and that Anglicanorum coetibus was addressed to North American former Anglicans who had already left the Episcopal church. The idea that the Pope wrote Anglicanorum coetibus for a dozen disaffected UK Anglicans is laughable.  So it's business as usual on the ecumenical front .. excellent !

Friday, 19 March 2010

Cranmer



I simply draw your attention to the 666th Twitter follower of the right-wing blogger Cranmer. Most apt.

Sunday, 14 March 2010

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic



Two simple lists, one big problem:-


Current issues facing the Roman Catholic Church
• Majority take little notice of ethical teaching
• Majority don't see celibacy as necessary or desirable for clergy
• Majority wouldn't object to women clergy
• Majority want more of a say / power
• Majority see Rome / Curia as severely out of touch / isolated from reality


Major initiatives by Benedict 16th
• Re-introducing the Latin Mass
• Lifting the excommunication of SSPX
• Offer to disaffected Anglicans


Metaphor that comes to mind; rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Thursday, 11 March 2010

Roma-il-mare

A comment on a previous post;- 'The laity aint havin it - Anglicanorum coetibus' by my learned colleague 'The Grumpy Cleric' (see it here http://bit.ly/a2en5a) has reminded me to say something about those planning to retire to Rome-il-mare.

A fairly large percentage (60-75%?) of those considering becoming Roman Catholic under Anglicanorum coetibus are within 10 years or less of retirement age. This raises the real possibility of FiF clergy becoming Roman Catholics whilst being financially supported by our Anglican pension scheme, at very considerable cost.

No doubt some will argue an entitlement to the pension on the basis of years of ministry. But I think there is a moral question to be asked. Considering that many loyal Anglicans will have to give sacrificially and very generously indeed to fund the pension scheme at a time of financial austerity and pension shortfall; is it right they should have to pay a pension to those who desert the church of their baptism, ministry and communion for another? Is that morally defensible? At the very least it's a question that has to be asked.

The stipend is not as such a salary or entitlement but an allowance on which to live; whether the pension, based on a stipend is a legal entitlement remains to be seen / tested.

Correct me if I'm wrong but did it not used to be the case that those who deserted the church and joined another were deprived of their orders and thereby had their pension entitlement reduced to 1/32nd of the original total. I mention this because I think the debate on the morality of pension payments ought NOT to take place with a presumption of impotence on the part of the C of E. I think a helpful and cooperative attitude would be engendered if everyone understood that no-one goes to Rome with their pension in tact as a right, but as a gift, if appropriate, of the sending church.

It also occurs to me that an agreement amongst all the main stream denominations that churches receiving clergy take on responsibility for their pension liability to date would stop churches getting other denominations clergy en-mass on the cheap. The 'entirely self financing' aspiration of the proposed ordinate strikes me as somewhere between unrealistic and frankly uncharitable; Rome is asking a lot of people, especially younger men with families, to sacrifice security & a regular income for a very uncertain & unspecified future.




 

blogger templates | Make Money Online