Lumen Gentium: The Calling of the Priest

In this section of Lumen Gentium I found the urgency towards mission for the priest something lacking in so many priestly ministries. Urgency of mission in our day is something that needs to be rekindled and set ablaze by the grace of God lighting a fire in our hearts in love for Him and His Church. Attitudes of letting the next generation get on with it is actually denying the urgency of the Gospel. As those called to possess a cure of souls let us pray for all priests as they have the wonderful privilege but sometimes daunting task of leading Christ's flock in faithfulness.

Priests, prudent cooperators with the Episcopal order,(72*) its aid and instrument, called to serve the people of God, constitute one priesthood (73*) with their bishop although bound by a diversity of duties. Associated with their bishop in a spirit of trust and generosity, they make him present in a certain sense in the individual local congregations, and take upon themselves, as far as they are able, his duties and the burden of his care, and discharge them with a daily interest. And as they sanctify and govern under the bishop's authority, that part of the Lord's flock entrusted to them they make the universal Church visible in their own locality and bring an efficacious assistance to the building up of the whole body of Christ.(184) intent always upon the welfare of God's children, they must strive to lend their effort to the pastoral work of the whole diocese, and even of the entire Church. On account of this sharing in their priesthood and mission, let priests sincerely look upon the bishop as their father and reverently obey him. And let the bishop regard his priests as his co-workers and as sons and friends, just as Christ called His disciples now not servants but friends.(185) All priests, both diocesan and religious, by reason of Orders and ministry, fit into this body of bishops and priests, and serve the good of the whole Church according to their vocation and the grace given to them.

In virtue of their common sacred ordination and mission, all priests are bound together in intimate brotherhood, which naturally and freely manifests itself in mutual aid, spiritual as well as material, pastoral as well as personal, in their meetings and in communion of life, of labor and charity. Let them, as fathers in Christ, take care of the faithful whom they have begotten by baptism and their teaching.(186) Becoming from the heart a pattern to the flock,(187) let them so lead and serve their local community that it may worthily be called by that name, by which the one and entire people of God is signed, namely, the Church of God.(188) Let them remember that by their daily life and interests they are showing the face of a truly sacerdotal and pastoral ministry to the faithful and the infidel, to Catholics and non-Catholics, and that to all they bear witness to the truth and life, and as good shepherds go after those also,(189) who though baptized in the Catholic Church have fallen away from the use of the sacraments, or even from the faith.

Because the human race today is joining more and more into a civic, economic and social unity, it is that much the more necessary that priests, by combined effort and aid, under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every kind of separateness, so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God.

The Mission of Communio

Experience teaches us that leading a Catholic life today is only possible where the mystery has retained its complete depth, where dogmas are not perceived as problems, are curtailed in their essential dimensions and reduced to purely human understanding, or where secondary forms of tradition are not selected as criteria for affiliation with the Church. Both extremes engender fanaticism, while genuine communion will only thrive based on the serenity shared by the children of God.

Only by assuming a non-polemic role of tranquility in the center will it be possible to assume genuine responsibility for the whole.

Here the tensions can be addressed that are characteristic of all living things -- including the Church of Christ-- which are not necessarily cause for alarm: tensions between the spirit of Pentecost and the institution, between personal and ecclesial conscience, and the like.

Communio does not present the mysteries of our faith as intellectual riddles for specialists; Communio does not treat theology as a purely academic subject. All that Communio wishes to accomplish is merely to help clarify the issues that confront the contemporary Christian by utilizing the shining depths of our common faith and, in so doing, to counteract widespread feelings of uncertainty.

Like the Catholic Church itself, Communio is essentially international in scope, though without disregarding the peculiarities of various cultures. Thus Communio's national editions deal with common themes and exchange basic articles, while individual editorial policy will pay close attention to the needs of a given language area.

Hans Urs von Balthasar
1978-1979

Lumen Gentium: Words to the Faithful and Not-so-Faithful

I was reading some of Lumen Gentium today being reminded of a few interesting places from a friend who probed me to read something and then read on to further interesting material here below. I leave it for the reader to understand and add comment[s]. This is indeed a very fascinating document and has much to offer developmentally within its proper context.

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.

Death of a Pope: A Novel Looking at the Fight for the Heart of the Catholic Church

I found this article in this week's Catholic Herald quite interesting on this book. I publish a portion of it there. I am back and settling into life again so I will be hopefully putting forth some new posts beginning today. I am presently at Ushaw RC Seminary for the weekend looking at Issues in Social Justice and the Campaigning Church.

Death of a Pope centres around a love triangle involving a British woman called Kate and an intelligence analyst, Kotovski, which reflects the moral confusion of post-Christian Britain, as well as disillusionment with liberal Catholicism in El Salvador and elsewhere, where he said those Catholics who opposed "replacing the Cross with the AK-47" were in fear of their lives.

Ignatius Press is a Catholic publisher founded in 1978 by Fr Joseph Fessio, a Jesuit and former pupil of Benedict XVI. It has published works by the current Pope as well as apologists such as Scott Hahn.

Mr Read correctly predicted that Cardinal Ratzinger would replace Pope John Paul II as pontiff in 2005, and told Ignatius Press that "from the mid-Eighties, when I first became aware of the then Cardinal Ratzinger with the publication of The Ratzinger Report, I have admired him for his patent holiness, his intelligence, his lucidity, his coherence, his charm and the quiet courage with which he insists upon unpopular truths.

"His very elevation to the papacy has routed the 'spirit of Vatican II' advocates of an alternative Magisterium. His encyclicals Deus Caritas Est and Spe Salvi, the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, and his book Jesus of Nazareth are all superb."

He added: "His courage and lucidity were clearly apparent in his Regensburg address. I share entirely his insistence that beauty and mystery should return to the celebration of the Eucharist."

Eccleisological Boredom: Provision or Communio

I am sitting on the train as I read Ruth Gledhill's recent blog entry and wonder why this Covenant idea to shape the Anglican Communion into some sort of 'in and out' communion can even begin to create real communio. The whole point of the idea of covenant in Holy Scripture is that if you are in you are in and if you are in you live by the terms of the covenant or you put yourself outside the covenant blessings. Where does the authority lie in such an ecclesiology that proposes the below multi-layered body? I mean, do people really believe that this sort of thing is a workable solution to a serious problem facing the Anglican Communion? This is an honest question. What this sort of approach does not do is what we are called to do in Scripture and that is be in real communion one with another. The serious fracture of communion is contrary to what ecclesiological approach we find in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Here is what Ruth Gledhill writes,

The covenant, by virtue of a quasi disciplinary process, is likely to create a multi-layered communion, with the 'conservative' provinces in the inner circle, with full voting rights at all the communion bodies, and the pro-gay liberals on the outer circle and presumably some rights removed, if they insist on consecrating more gay bishops or sanctioning gay marriage and refuse to sign up to the convenant in all its biblical orthodoxy.

To me this seems to be one of the clearest signs of Protestantism run amok. I do not honestly see what sort of a real ecclesiology can be seen in such 'multi-layered' relationships. In the end, what will a covenant of this sort really mean? How does it maintain real communion? If real communion cannot be the result, why or how could this be interesting at all? Perhaps this is why I could be bored and disappointed by this line of reasoning as Anglicanism's only option at attempting to stop the schism! This is another case where Catholic Anglicans are called to seek real communion and not merely provision

No one Can Be Offended, But God Can: A Point Never Discussed

I invite the readers to watch the first 22 minutes of this episode of the BIG QUESTIONS concerning the liability of the present Pope. Church of England members are interestingly represented by Christina Reese who speaks out on the danger and life threatening ways of Pope Benedict XVI. It was good to see the the blogger Catholic and Loving It fearlessly and calmly defending Truth.

This video is a clear example of why we need to be praying and preaching the Truth with clarity and certainty. These people believe that they can put enough political pressure on the Pope to make him heel and this only goes to show how much they do not understand the Catholic Faith let alone Christianity. This young woman who claims to be Christian and sleep with other 'women' (plural) as a self-professing lesbian is absolutely one confused individual about how the Church separates the act from the love of the person. The young blogger Catholic and Loving It is spot on and calm and simply continues to beat the drum of Christian faith and morality. To claim that secularism in this country has more Christlikeness than the Pope and Catholic Church is the most stupid comment I think I have ever heard in my life. This only goes to show how bankrupt the Western culture is becoming in having lost its first love.

I openly and fully support this Pope's moral compass and do not believe he is a liability but only pray that God mercifully transforms the lives of those who are attacking Christian morality as dangerous and life threatening so that they may see how the Pope's message is seeking to help all Christian sinners walk more faithfully in the light. The present Pope simply calls Christians to a faithful life of sacrifice and like Jesus himself he is being persecuted and metaphorically crucified while the crowds shout louder and louder in agreement. Jesus promised that if you are faithful to him you will be crucified. Perhaps more Christians should follow in the Pope's example. God bless James Preece and his stand for Catholic Truth against a tide of opposition! Well done James!

C.S. Lewis: The Inner Ring

But I said I was going to give advice, and advice should deal with the future, not the past. I have hinted at the past only to awake you to what I believe to be the real nature of human life. I don't believe that the economic motive and the erotic motive account for everything that goes on in what we moralists call the World. Even if you add Ambition I think the picture is still incomplete. The lust for the esoteric, the longing to be inside, take many forms which are not easily recognizable as Ambition. We hope, no doubt, for tangible profits from every Inner Ring we penetrate: power, money, liberty to break rules, avoidance of routine duties, evasion of discipline. But all these would not satisfy us if we did not get in addition the delicious sense of secret intimacy. It is no doubt a great convenience to know that we need fear no official reprimands from our official senior because he is old Percy, a fellow-member of our ring. But we don't value the intimacy only for the sake of convenience; quite equally we value the convenience as a proof of the intimacy.

My main purpose in this address is simply to convince you that this desire is one of the great permanent mainsprings of human action. It is one of the factors which go to make up the world as we know it-this whole pell-mell of struggle, competition, confusion, graft, disappointment, and advertisement, and if it is one of the permanent mainsprings then you may be quite sure of this. Unless you take measures to prevent it, this desire is going to be one of the chief motives of your life, from the first day on which you enter your profession until the day when you are too old to care. That will be the natural thing-the life that will come to you of its own accord. Any other kind of life, if you lead it, will be the result of conscious and continuous effort. If you do nothing about it, if you drift with the stream, you will in fact be an "inner ringer." I don't say you'll be a successful one; that's as may be. But whether by pining and moping outside Rings that you can never enter, or by passing triumphantly further and further in-one way or the other you will be that kind of man. I have already made it fairly clear that I think it better for you not to be that kind of man.

But you may have an open mind on the question. I will therefore suggest two reasons for thinking as I do.

It would be polite and charitable, and in view of your age reasonable too, to suppose that none of you is yet a scoundrel. On the other hand, by the mere law of averages (I am saying nothing against free will) it is almost certain that at least two or three of you before you die will have become something very like scoundrels. There must be in this room the makings of at least that number of unscrupulous, treacherous, ruthless egotists. The choice is still before you: and I hope you will not take my hard words about your possible future characters as a token of disrespect to your present characters. And the prophecy I make is this. To nine out of ten of you the choice which could lead to scoundrelism will come, when it does come, in no very dramatic colors. Obviously bad men, obviously threatening or bribing, will almost certainly not appear. Over a drink or a cup of coffee, disguised as a triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still-just at the moment when you are most anxious not to appear crude, or naif, or a prig-the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which is not quite in accordance with the technical rules of fair play: something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which "we"-and at the word "we" you try not to blush for mere pleasure-something "we always do." And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be so terrible to see the other man's face-that genial, confidential, delightfully sophisticated face-turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude: it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.

That is my first reason. Of all the passions the passion for the Inner Ring is most skilful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things. My second reason is this. The torture allotted to the Danaids in the classical underworld, that of attempting to fill sieves with water, is the symbol not of one vice but of all vices. It is the very mark of a perverse desire that it seeks what is not to be had. The desire to be inside the invisible line illustrates this rule. As long as you are governed by that desire you will never get what you want. You are trying to peel an onion: if you succeed there will be nothing left. Until you conquer the fear of being an outsider, an outsider you will remain.

This is surely very clear when you come to think of it. If you want to be made free of a certain circle for some wholesome reason-if, say, you want to join a musical society because you really like music-then there is a possibility of satisfaction. You may find yourself playing in a quartet and you may enjoy it. But if all you want is to be in the know, your pleasure will be short-lived. The circle cannot have from within the charm it had from outside. By the very act of admitting you it has lost its magic. Once the first novelty is worn off the members of this circle will be no more interesting than your old friends. Why should they be? You were not looking for virtue or kindness or loyalty or humor or learning or wit or any of the things that can be really enjoyed. You merely wanted to be "in." And that is a pleasure that cannot last. As soon as your new associates have been staled to you by custom, you will be looking for another Ring. The rainbow's end will still be ahead of you. The old Ring will now be only the drab background for your endeavor to enter the new one.

And you will always find them hard to enter, for a reason you very well know. You yourself once you are in, want to make it hard for the next entrant, just as those who are already in made it hard for you. Naturally. In any wholesome group of people which holds together for a good purpose, the exclusions are in a sense accidental. Three or four people who are together for the sake of some piece of work exclude others because there is work only for so many or because the others can't in fact do it. Your little musical group limits its numbers because the rooms they meet in are only so big. But your genuine Inner Ring exists for exclusion. There'd be no fun if there were no outsiders. The invisible line would have no meaning unless most people were on the wrong side of it. Exclusion is no accident: it is the essence.

The quest of the Inner Ring will break your hearts unless you break it. But if you break it, a surprising result will follow. If in your working hours you make the work your end, you will presently find yourself all unawares inside the only circle in your profession that really matters. You will be one of the sound craftsmen, and other sound craftsmen will know it. This group of craftsmen will by no means coincide with the Inner Ring or the Important People or the People in the Know. It will not shape that professional policy or work up that professional influence which fights for the profession as a whole against the public: nor will it lead to those periodic scandals and crises which the Inner Ring produces. But it will do those things which that profession exists to do and will in the long run be responsible for all the respect which that profession in fact enjoys and which the speeches and advertisements cannot maintain. And if in your spare time you consort simply with the people you like, you will again find that you have come unawares to a real inside: that you are indeed snug and safe at the center of something which, seen from without, would look exactly like an Inner Ring. But the difference is that its secrecy is accidental, and its exclusiveness a by-product, and no one was led thither by the lure of the esoteric: for it is only four or five people who like one another meeting to do things that they like. This is friendship. Aristotle placed it among the virtues. It causes perhaps half of all the happiness in the world, and no Inner Ring can ever have it.

We are told in Scripture that those who ask get. That is true, in senses I can't now explore. But in another sense there is much truth in the schoolboy's principle "them as asks shan't have." To a young person, just entering on adult life, the world seems full of Insides," full of delightful intimacies and confidentialities, and he desires to enter them. But if he follows that desire he will reach no "inside" that is worth reaching. The true road lies in quite another direction. It is like the house in Alice Through the Looking Glass.

Happy Anniversary to the Holy Father

On this day in 2005 Joseph Cardinal Raztinger was elected as Pope and the 265th successor of S. Peter. Congratulations to the Holy Father and many prayers and best wishes for many healthy years as the Bishop of Rome.

More From Rome and Request for Prayer Intentions

I thought it might be nice to put a few more pictures up from my trip to Rome. I shall try to get back to more substantive writing during the week but I do ask for a special prayer intention for the week I am facing. There are a number of very important private concerns that I humbly ask the readers to bring before the Blessed Sacrament when you are able. These intentions were offered in Rome in my own private prayers but I now ask for any willing to join me in these intentions.

Looking back at my retreat week in Rome, I was reminded of the many blessings that I have received from God in the short time of 40 years of life. What a gift it is to be united to the Risen Lord in faith and baptism. There is a joy and blessing in being a Christian in the Catholic Tradition more than words are able to express. It is much like the Gospel reading at Mass today where we heard three times as Jesus appeared to his disciples and said, 'Peace be with you!' That peace is not an absence of rough and bumpy roads but rather an assurance of God's love for us and our union with Christ by his death and resurrection. This is a peace the world is not able to give. This peace comes from knowing that we are living in the will of the Father. More peace is attributed to us by our loving God in the keeping of his commandments that are not burdensome. My retreat was a place where I experienced this peace afresh in the times where I was alone with God in prayer either before the Blessed Sacrament, in a quiet place in a chapel in one of the beautiful basilicas or at the tombs of S. Peter and Pope John Paul II. These are the places where I prayed for wisdom and that God would 'Lead, Kindly Light.'

The Church is under great persecution and attack by the secularist ideology and it comes with a great vengeance. The Holy Father is also one who is under this terrific attack from those outside as well as within the Church. Satan does find his sneaky way into the Church and we, now more than we ever have perhaps, need to be praying for the Church around the world and particularly Pope Benedict XVI and all those who lead and guide Christ's Church. Communion needs to be sought by each and every member as well as corporate ecclesial communities in order to be reunited with the Church so that we can all be one. The divisions and demands for autonomy are weakening us beyond our present abilities to stand against this wave of attack.

May God's Holy Angels, surround, guard and protect His Church! May Mary, the Mother of the Church, and all the saints, pray for us! May God Almighty bless us, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit! Amen.

Back from My Retreat in Rome and Back to Work

I will write a bit more later as I returned from Rome late last evening and have just now come back from Mass and I need to visit with the family today. Rome was beautiful every day and the Easter week was one to be remembered. It was so good to get to see Fr. Jeffrey Steenson and meet other priests who study and work in Rome as we shared life in the Church and many concerns all around. I will put up a few pictures for now that I took while there. If you are not my friend on facebook and would like to see many that I will put on facebook, then send me a request and I will add you so that you can see.

For those of you who asked for prayers throughout Lent, I took your petitions to the tomb of S. Peter and offered them there. I pray that all of them will be answered with many blessings to you! Thank you for praying for me as I continue to pray for all readers here at my blog. God bless! He is Risen! Alleluia, Alleluia!

First Full Day in Roma!

Well, I will not be posting a long post but only to say that it has been a wonderful day today in the eternal city. I started the morning early with my office and then headed over to St. Peter's for the morning where I took lots of pictures, went to the museum, prayed at the tombs of the popes and extended times of prayer at St. Peter's and the tomb of JPII. I then went to the top of the Dome and took pictures followed by a noon Angelus. I met Father Jeffrey Steenson who is now living in Rome and we had lunch together and spent most of the afternoon together talking and laughing. Oh yeah, he told me to mention that he doesn't miss Anglicanism one bit! He is happily a Roman Catholic priest now and said that all was very different for him but so much better. It is as if he is living in a different religion. Well, having come from the TEC, one can imagine that being quite true.

We had a wonderful discussion about Eucharistic theology at an Italian restaurant and a walk about to show me where I needed to go to get my tickets and things for the events and meetings to happen this week. I am staying very close to the Square (150 meters) which makes getting around the city very easy. Tomorrow is a big day of prayer at the Basillicas and the catacombs. I also will be picking up my 'special ticket' to the Papal General Audience for Wednesday. I have prayed for many of you today especially for those who have asked me to pray for 'special intentions.' Most things were closed today around the city due to the Easter holiday but things should get kicked off again tomorrow so my time here will continue to blossom. I have just returned from a wonderful Chinese dinner and I shall retire to pray and do some relaxing reading.

If my good friend Prof. Tighe is reading this, Father Jeffrey Steenson sends his greetings back and mentioned his joy at receiving the recent package! Thanks too for the book on Rome in the first centuries. It is making for good reading while I am here in the flesh! Pictures forthcoming when I return to England Saturday. I am receiving texts and will check my email every other day. It is €5 per hour to be online!!!!!

Next Entries From Rome

This is just a quick note to let the readers know that I will be in Rome from Easter night until Friday of Low Week. I am not sure how much blogging I will be able to do get done from there but I will try to put some items on along with some pictures of my time there. For those of you who have been having prayers offered at S. Cuthbert's Shrine in Durham, I will complete these prayers at St. Peter's tomb for your intentions. Please pray for me as I will all of you and I hope you have a blessed Easter!

Bishop Andrew Burnham's Chrism Homily

The lot is fallen unto me in a fair ground: yea, I have a goodly heritage. Ps. 16:7

THIS IS MY ninth Chrism Mass sermon and, as always, I try to cover a topic of lively interest to the clergy that I have not covered before. The new topic this year - following consecutive years spent on the Eucharist and on the sacraments of initiation, Baptism and Confirmation - is a phrase which is being increasingly bandied around, 'Anglican Patrimony'. It's an important phrase because, whatever becomes of us - whether we stay on, indefinitely, in our own little corner of the Church of England, as many of us plan to do, or seek reconciliation with the Holy See, as many of us have done and will do - it is surely right to examine just what it is that we should be staying for, and just what it is that we should be taking with us, whether individually or in a group.

But before I say too much about Anglican Patrimony and about staying and going, I must grapple with some Scripture. We are well on in 'the Pauline Year,' which goes on until 29th June 2009. As we commemorate the second millennium of the birth of St Paul we can't help noticing that Petertide, when the year of Paul starts and finishes, is ordination-time in the Church of England. So what has St Paul got to tell us about Christian ministry?

The Pastoral Epistles tell us quite a bit about what we nowadays call the 'ordained ministry' but the problem with the Pastorals, for our purposes, is that modern scholarship very much takes the view that it was disciples of Paul, rather than Paul himself, who wrote the two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus. So, rather than deal with bits of evidence here and there for what we would call 'ordained ministry' in Acts and the epistles, I want instead to make some rather more general points about Christian ministry, as we learn about it through St Paul. Nothing original but maybe, for some, a new approach.

Christian ministry in the teaching of Paul is urgent and sacrificial. It is corporate and eucharistic. It is authoritative and all-encompassing. Urgent and sacrificial; corporate and eucharistic; authoritative and all-encompassing. Bear with me while I say a word about each of these three headings, and then, I promise, I shall briefly touch on the traditional 'the state of the nation' bit of the Chrism Mass sermon. First, the teaching of Paul is urgent and sacrificial. Think of this verse, 'If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain' (1 Corinthians 15:14). Pope Benedict, in his address on 5th November last year had this to say about this verse:

' ... St. Paul makes clear how decisive is the importance that he attributes to the resurrection of Jesus. In this event, in fact, is the solution to the problem that the drama of the cross implies. On its own, the cross could not explain Christian faith; on the contrary, it would be a tragedy, a sign of the absurdity of being.'

Paul, among the first of the evangelists to the world, not only tells us how urgent our message but tells us of the lengths to which he and we should be prepared to go:

'To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly clothed and buffeted and homeless…we have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the dregs of all things.' (1 Corinthians 4:11, 13)

So, as we renew our ministerial promises, how do we live up to this? Is the Gospel we preach urgent and sacrificial? I think of this - and one or two of the other purple Pauline passages - when people tell me that they must be in a parish which has the freehold, or that they are just going to coast along until retirement. We must recover urgency. We must recover a sense of the sacrificial, unconditional nature of Christian discipleship. [Undoubtedly one of our greatest weaknesses across the board!; Well said, Father!]

Second, Paul's teaching about ministry is corporate and eucharistic. This year I have had reason to revisit John Robinson's excellent monograph, The Body, first published in 1952. This is part of what he has to say, which we have put in full in this month's Ebbsfleet Extra:

One could say without exaggeration that the concept of the body forms the keystone of Paul's theology ... It is from the body of sin and death that we are delivered; it is through the body of Christ on the Cross that we are saved; it is into his body the Church that we are incorporated; it is by his body in the Eucharist that this Community is sustained; it is in our body that its new life has to be manifested; it is to a resurrection of this body to the likeness of his glorious body that we are destined ... .

In Pauline thought we, who are members of the Body of Christ, are members of that Body because we are fed on that Body. You and I, my brother priests, are called not only to play our part as ministers in the Body, but to create that Body in the Mass, and to nourish our people with it, so that they - and we - become 'very members incorporate', as the Prayer Book has it, members of the Mystical Body of Christ. So how dare we refer to ordination as 'going into the Church', as if 'the Church' were a clerical club? How dare we talk about 'the Church' as if it were a bunch of bishops, or a provincial synod, or even a whole generation?

The Body of Christ, the Church, is everywhere and spanning every century. What it teaches, as the fifth century canon of St Vincent of Lerins puts it, is quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, what has been believed always, what has been believed everywhere, and what has been believed by everyone. Heresies and theological errors come and go, like the calling of cuckoos in spring. Like sin or the cold virus, heresies and errors are the same old stuff, looking slightly different each time. As Vincent himself believed, there is a continuing job of explaining and exploring Scripture but the development of doctrine must be in the hands of a competent authority which, from the earliest days, has included reference to the Bishop of Rome. The debate has not been about whether he has this authority, but how and when he should exercise it.

Which brings us to our third point: Christian ministry in the teaching of Paul is authoritative and all-encompassing. It is authoritative because each of us is commissioned by Christ to do it: lay people by baptism, deacons, priests and bishops by ordination. In Romans 12 the faithful, the 'saints', are 'many members' of the 'one body', with 'gifts that differ': prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, making a contribution, giving aid, doing acts of mercy. In 1 Corinthians 12, we hear about the varieties of gifts, varieties of service, varieties of working:

uttering wisdom, uttering knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, working miracles, prophecy, distinguishing between spirits, speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues.

What we do is authoritative because it is done apostolically, in the name of Christ, whom the Father sent, that he in turn might send the apostles and they in turn might send us. We share in this apostolic ministry and speak with its authority. But our ministry is also all-encompassing. As St Paul shows us, there is something for everyone to do, and indeed goes on to say that 'the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable' (1 Cor. 12:22).

So far I have called in evidence the Holy Father and a famous liberal Anglican theologian. (Not so liberal, actually: remember his conservative dating of St John's Gospel). My third and final witness is the late Metropolitan Anthony Bloom. In The Living Body of Christ, a collection of talks printed last year, Metropolitan Anthony has this to say of the ministry of the laity (amongst whom he counts us bishops, priests and deacons):

'It is the people of God….who must make sacred everything they touch, who can sanctify all things by first sanctifying themselves, and then bringing into sanctity everything they touch and do, until God can become "all in all". St Basil reminds us that "anyone can rule, but only a king can give his life for his subjects", and each of us in that respect is endowed with the kingship of Christ, that is, with his command to die for our neighbour and for the salvation of the world.' (p208f)

True, the springboard for this reflection is the reference in 1 Peter 2:9 to 'a royal priesthood', but Metropolitan Anthony's thoughts are bound up with the vision of God being 'everything to everyone' (1 Corinthians 15:28), 'all in all', as the NRSV puts it. Christian ministry, as we said, is 'authoritative and all-encompassing'.

********

And now, very briefly, for Anglican Patrimony. As you know, there is a huge amount going on behind the scenes. I am by turns amused and alarmed when this is not understood. One moment we bishops are accused of lack of leadership, the next of swanning off and leaving everyone in the lurch. I set out my stall last year and have been in extensive discussions, not only with brother bishops but also with my Council of Priests and my Lay Congress and Council. There are, I think, three distinct groups in our midst - at least at present - and, as bishop, I must do my best to minister effectively to them while ever I can. The first group is what I have called the 'non-jurors': those who will stay put, almost whatever happens, and who badly need the best synodical provision that can be achieved. Lots of work going on there. Papers flying around. We have a very good representation on the Revision Committee and we shall have to see what emerges. The second group are the 'solo swimmers'. There are some people - priests and lay people - who see the need to make individual pilgrimage to Rome as supplicants. I have sent three or four priests, and there are lay people too who are slipping off to their local Catholic Church and starting a new life there. In almost every case, as far as I can see, this is happening not out of disloyalty to the rest of us but because of circumstances - often the impossibility locally.

It is the third group which most belong to.What I have called 'the caravan'. The caravan - an untidy jumble of folk trekking across the desert to more fertile lands - is an image of the People of God which goes back to the Book of Exodus. It is an image for human life itself. It has been the main theme of Catholic Anglicanism and was the theme of consecutive Ebbsfleet Festivals of Faith: 'Marching to the Promised Land, the Land of Milk and Honey' was the title of one. The SSC - the priestly society to which most of the priests here belong - is committed to reunion with the Holy See. Forward in Faith is committed to corporate reunion. So is the Catholic League. And I could go on. Surely, in our present brokenness, there is a fresh opportunity. We made this point last Eastertide in Rome, when we were granted high-level audiences in the Vatican. We made this point in an article in the Catholic Herald last July, following that infamous synodical debate. We continue to wait for an answer but have every reason to continue to hope that there will be an answer, a new ecumenical initiative on the part of the Holy See.

But whether we stay put, drift off as individuals, or journey on as an untidy caravan, we do need to attend to the gifts that God has given us, and which are part of our Anglican patrimony. Looking back, I think we have been a bit too willing to pretend to be modern Roman Catholics, too careless about what we as Anglicans have as a precious possession. The Prayer Book offices. The 1928 Marriage and Funeral services. Cranmer's collects. The tradition of the English Bible, most richly and wholly present in the slightly modernised RSV, which we give out to confirmation candidates. A fine tradition of hymnody and an unparalleled musical tradition. A feeling for the 'parish mass', not always found in à la carte Roman Catholicism. Some stunning buildings and some extraordinarily effective liturgical spaces created within mediocre buildings. Most of all, a pastoral method which accepts and ministers to everyone, regardless of who they are, and tries to move them on in the direction of the Kingdom. [This is a part of Anglican pastoral care that is to be held on to tightly in my opinion.] And so my plea to you all, at the end of this Chrism Mass sermon, is to be patient and loving with one another as our present dramas play out. To be proud of what we have received, to prize it, and to be content to explore it. Whether we stay or go, whether we go one by one or together in a group, whether we manage to hang on to our beloved buildings or not, the gifts God has given us Catholic Anglicans are very real gifts. Who knows, we Catholic Anglicans may yet become Anglican Catholics?

The lot is fallen unto me in a fair ground: yea, I have a goodly heritage.

Good Friday Meditation: Blood and Water Flowed From His Side

There flowed from his side water and blood”. Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, “the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit”, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the Eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: “Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!” As God then took a rib from Adam’s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from his side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after his own death.

Do you understand, then, how Christ has united his bride to himself and what food he gives us all to eat? By one and the same food we are both brought into being and nourished. As a woman nourishes her child with her own blood and milk, so does Christ unceasingly nourish with his own blood those to whom he himself has given life.


St. John Chrysostom

Chrism Mass Homily: Bishop Martyn Jarrett SSC

One of the delights of modern partying, which, I regret to say, I have not yet encountered, is the chocolate fountain.The concept of a continuous, seemingly neverending flow of chocolate can conjure up, for some of us at least, a vision of near perfect contentment.That is provided, of course, that you and I have the sense to recognise the fact that our digestion can handle only so much of what seems to be on endless offer for us. Some of us would probably have the same kind of thrill were we to see wine fountains. A young friend of mine described what it was like to be in Southern France when the new vintage of Chateau Neuf-de-Pape was available for drinking.

Wine literally flowed from fountains and there was no restriction on how much anyone was permitted to consume.For the folk of Palestine, two thousand years ago, abundance was not measured in terms of the amount of chocolate available or even in terms of a good wine harvest.

The key to well being was the olive. Its oil provided food, fuel and healing. No wonder then that the sign of God’s approval of someone was to anoint his or her head with olive oil.

Jesus stands up in the synagogue at Nazareth and says: The Spirit of the Lord has been given to me, for He has anointed me. The anointing of Jesus is not even performed with olive oil. The Gospels tell us that Jesus is anointed by the Holy Sprit, the pure love that flows between the Father and the Son. Jesus’ anointing is an expression of the fact that God’s unadulterated love lives in Him and flows from Him. Whatever else this Chrism Mass might be about, it is a celebration of the love of God. Today you and I are celebrating the fact that the love of God that lives completely in Jesus, the love that is the Holy Spirit, is alive in you and alive in me.

We are joined to Jesus. You and I, together with every Christian, are, as Saint Paul says, the Body of Christ. The gardeners among us might, perhaps, find another of Saint Paul’s images more helpful. Saint Paul writes in his Letter to the Romans of us being grafted on to a plant so as to share its life. Just like a gardener succeeds in grafting one rose onto another, in order to create a hybrid, so Jesus grafts you and me onto His vine. It is not even a hybrid that is created. Jesus fills each new branch equally with His life. The life that flows through Jesus is the love of God the Holy Spirit who has anointed Him. Those of us who are anointed with the Oil of Chrism at Baptism and at Confirmation receive that anointing as an assurance that God’s Holy Spirit now flows through us, wanting to overflow in love to the world around us. You and I know all too well that the failure to recognise love either within the Church or within individual Christians is, for many people, the biggest obstacles to them becoming Christians. Richard Dawkins is all too keen to produce a long list of the wars and other miseries that religious people have managed to unleash on the world.

The Nineteenth Century vicar of Tolpuddle, who as a local magistrate, helped sentence those early trade unionists to transportation, was not exactly witnessing either to God’s wish for ordinary folk to flourish or even to a Christian capacity for compassion. Even the saintly Thomas More shocked some of his contemporaries by his enthusiasm for having burnt at the stake those whom he judged to be heretics. The long march of Christian history moves onwards and onwards.That journey desperately needs to be accompanied by an ever-deepening perception what it means for each of us authentically to radiate the love of Christ.So often we Christians miss the most basic of opportunities for sharing that love. Father Timothy Radcliffe writes of an airliner about to crash and someone calling out in desperation: “Can’t anyone do something religious?” whereupon a Catholic stood up and began to take a collection. The Spirit of the Lord has been given to me; for He has anointed me. Being anointed with Chrism, then, is a sign to us that God’s love, the Holy Spirit, Himself, is at work in us and through us. The trouble is that so many of us go all gooey when we start to talk about love. It is all too easy to talk about God’s love as though it were the plot of a Mills and Boon novel. Or, perhaps more often, many of us treat God’s love as if it were the action of an over-indulgent parent.

One the most awful experiences for those who liberated children from concentration camps was to find that the rich chocolate they wanted to give the youngsters as the treat of a lifetime was the very thing that could kill them. It takes tough love to deny a starving child all the food she wants even though more than a few mouthfuls of a well thought out diet would result in her death. Yet, that kind of tough love might serve as a parable for you and me as to the love that is at the heart of God and whose Spirit of love we celebrate in the Oil of Chrism. It is the love that knows not only when it is right to turn water into wine. It is also the love that refuses to run after that rich young man of the Gospels, who will do anything for Jesus except change his lifestyle. God’s pure love is one that leads Jesus to walk away from those who would cut short His mission by throwing him over a cliff or by stoning Him.

Yet that same love will remain constant, even towards sinful humanity who impale Him on a cross. For those of us here today, who are priests, that sign of the Oil of Chrism as the presence of divine love is especially important. Pope Benedict reminds us in one of his addresses to fellow priests that, when we are anointed at priestly ordinations, it is not our heads but our hands that are anointed. You and I, so Pope Benedict reminds us, are anointed for priestly service as a means of demonstrating God’s love, not only in all that we are but also in all that we do. Yes, of course, that will be in our service at the altar and in the other sacraments of the Church. Equally importantly, God’s love will be shown and recognised in all that you and I do in our care for other people, in our putting of their needs and vulnerabilities before meeting our own. Having our hands anointed to show God’s loving service even means dealing equally generously, both with unattractive sinners and with the sinners whom you and I find much more convivial. When Jesus speaks of being anointed by God’s Spirit, the very first thing that He goes on to say is that that anointing has been given to Him so that He can bring good news to the poor, release prisoners, help blind people see and liberate the victims of society.

Jesus looks for no less in the ministry of His priests. Priesthood is as much about what is done outside the sanctuary as what is done inside it. Jesus makes that challenge afresh to you and to me today as we renew our priestly vows. The Spirit of the Lord has been given to me for He has anointed me. The gift of pure love that is God’s Spirit is to be found, too, in our other oils. That Spirit of Love is found in the Oil for Baptism, applied even before Baptism is conferred. For God’s Spirit of Love is ever ahead of us drawing us home as surely as the Prodigal Son could anticipate His Father’s loving welcome the moment He was brought to his senses and set off to return home.

When you and I know pain and suffering, even as we can make little or no sense of it, God shows that He is on the side of wholeness and healing. The Spirit of God makes present in the Sacrament of the Sick, Jesus of Nazareth who sees illness as an affront to God’s Kingdom and assures us, even in our puzzlement, that God’s healing power is at work in Him. It sometimes feels to me as if the Chrism Masses are more about Pentecost than they are about Holy Week. The truth, of course, is that God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is active in every part of the Gospel story. God is active here and now. He is active in this Eucharist as the Father will send His Holy Spirit and once more show the Lord’s death until He comes again in glory.

God is active as the Father plants His Loving Spirit in our hearts so that we might recognise the presence of Jesus within us. May we priests have rekindled within us today our awareness of that work of the Triune God, that He seeks to achieve in each one of us. And, may the whole Church know through these powerful signs of the Holy Oils, that God’s love dwells deep within each one of us and calls each of us, in turn, to radiate His love throughout our world.

Tony Blair and the Evolution of the Faith on Sexuality

Ruth Gledhill writes an article in the Times today stating that Mr. Blair thinks the Pope is out of step with populous in Catholic pews on the issue of homosexuality and believes that the Pope and the Church needs to 'rethink' its position on this issue and see texts as metaphorical and not literal. It makes one wonder why he ever became a Catholic. Perhaps the next article we may read is Mr. Blair being refused the Sacrament for holding such positions due to the directive to public figures who speak out openly against the Church's teachings. When he took his vows to become a Catholic, did he state this exception, I wonder? I think he's so far out of his depth he doesn't know which way is up! Here is what Ruth Gledhill says in her article.

Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.

Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.

Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”

The Pope, who is 82, remains firmly opposed to any relaxation of the Church’s traditional stance on homosexuality, contraception or any other area of human sexuality. He has described homosexuality as a “tendency” towards an “intrinsic moral evil”.

Mr Blair, who now travels the world on behalf of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which aims to promote understanding of the main religions, left the Church of England for Rome soon after leaving office in 2007.

In the interview Mr Blair spoke of a “quiet revolution in thinking” and implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step with the public.

“There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a wellattended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.” The faith of ordinary Catholics is rarely found “in those types of entrenched attitudes”, he said.

Maybe Mr. Blair could evolve into thinking about reading and digesting this quotation:

'Jesus did not found a Catholic party in a cosmopolitan debating society but a Catholic Church to which he promised the fullness of truth; a body which reduces its Catholics to a party within a religious parliament can hardly deserve to be called a branch of the Catholic Church, but a national religion, dominated by and structured on the principles of liberal tolerance in which the authority of revelation is subordinate to democracy and private opinion.'

Or, maybe Mr. Blair has forgotten about the comments made by the Pope on aborition and other grave sins to the media when he was in route to Brazil. Read the whole article here.

The Pope was asked whether he supported Mexican Church leaders threatening to excommunicate leftist parliamentarians who last month voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City.

"Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ," he said.

"They (Mexican Church leaders) did nothing new, surprising or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church... which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment (of life)".

Under Church law, someone who knowingly does or backs something which the Church considers a grave sin, such as abortion, inflicts what is known as "automatic excommunication" on themselves.

The Pope said parliamentarians who vote in favor of abortion have "doubts about the value of life and the beauty of life and even a doubt about the future".

"Selfishness and fear are at the root of (pro-abortion) legislation," he said. "We in the Church have a great struggle to defend life...life is a gift not a threat."

My question is, why have we not 'evolved' in our thinking as a result of our experience that the way we are going is not making our society a better place to live but where one now lives in more fear under the watchful eye of those who claim to be making laws that are unravelling our society into complete chaos? Is the breakdown of the traditional family and the rapid rise of divorce and co-habitation making our children more secure? I invite us all to enter into our schools or perhaps ask teachers how it is on the ground. It is my humble opinion that a change is needed in training priests and definitely there is a need for a robust discipleship (catechesis) that is needed in very parish in our land. Perhaps we can call it 'Back to the Basics.'

A Single Clause or a Code? There May Be a Third Option!

In an blog entry below, I have written a short response to one area of Dr. Threlfall-Holmes' article in April New Directions. I would imagine that many readers here have read the entire piece themselves. So why reproduce it in its entirety? Perhaps some readers haven't read it and hopefully we can have some input from the RC or Orthodox readers of this blog. What I would like to see take place is a theological discussion on the highlighted portions of the article that are made heavy print. These are the areas that I find to be the heart of the theological divisions with the issue of women's ordination. Below is the article. Please feel free to comment.

In this article, I've been asked to explain both why I'd prefer a Single Clause Measure (hereafter SCM) to a Code of Practice (hereafter CoP) in the women bishops' legislation, and also why - that being the case - I'm now prepared to support the Code of Practice option. As a member of General Synod, I proposed the unsuccessful amendment in July of 2008 that we should choose 'option 1' (a SCM allowing for women bishops, with no formal provision for opponents). In Synod this February, I asked that the sacrifice I, and others who share my views, are prepared to make in going along with a CoP be recognized, and that those of you who cannot accept women's ordination be prepared to meet us halfway.

In commissioning this article, your editor pointed out to me that we both would prefer a SCM. However, it is clear to me that whilst that is indeed true, we prefer it for very different reasons, albeit with some substantial overlap. I think we all agree that a SCM would be a much more theologically and ecclesiologi-cally coherent solution, and for those reasons alone is much more desirable.

However, it seems to me that the other reason many of you would prefer a SCM is in order to make the decision to vote against the legislation in its entirety a much easier one to take, and one with the potential to receive more sympathy from the wider church. Whilst I can appreciate the reasoning behind this position, it is very different from my own view that a SCM would provide much better legislation, enabling our church to literally go forward in faith, hope and love.

As I said in the debate last July, my reasons for supporting a SCM include it being more coherent than the alternatives. A SCM wouldn't create any new categories or types of bishops, or distinctions between bishops, and thus would maintain the historic understanding of the episcopacy more effectively than the alternative structures that have been suggested. [This is a good point by the way practically speaking but not theologically speaking if one cannot and does not recognise that women are permitted to Holy Orders.]

A SCM would also avoid making distinctions between clergy based on gender, which to my mind would be extremely desirable (I shall return to this point in a moment). It is also the solution which has been chosen in every other province of the Anglican Communion which currently has legislation in place to permit women to become bishops if called to that office.

Furthermore, on a more pragmatic level, I believe that local, informal arrangements for the provision of ministry and pastoral support to those who cannot accept the ordination of women are more likely to deliver the highest possible degree of communion, interaction and working together in parishes and deaneries. I fear that a structural 'solution, which imposed formal barriers between local parishes and bishops, would simply fossilize division rather than having a fuller future communion as its aim. [Is this not the entire problem though? The division is already there and the C of E is finding a way to live in it. Perhaps now seeing the impossibilities she faces in attempting to do so.]

Since July, I have committed myself to spending time making contact with various priests and lay people in my own diocese of Durham who are opposed to women's ordination and/or consecration. I have wanted to make sure that I have heard the particular concerns different individuals hold about the proposals before us, and have asked for and listened to their views on what might be a workable solution. In each case I have made it clear that this is a 'listening process' for me, and that I would not be seeking to persuade but to listen and understand. These conversations have not been easy for any of us, but they have all been honest and clear, and I am very grateful for that. I have heard a wide variety of objections, from the 'impossibilist' position - which I find hard to accept or even comprehend, as I shall explain below - to more gentle yet equally firmly and painfully held concerns about the Church of England going it alone'. [Very interesting to me that when she met with me and affirmed that she believed that Holy Orders are sacraments and I challenged with the theological objection of not changing sacramental symbols as they communicate to us the reality of God's will and goodness to the Church the only response was sociological factors going through her head. At least that was the answer she gave to me then.]

For me, the key theological principle at stake is Gregory Nazianzen's famous phrase, 'the unassumed is the unhealed'. If this is accepted, then Christ, as the fully representative human being as well as fully God, must be understood as essentially having assumed humanity, rather than maleness. In Aquinas' sacramental terminology, Christ's maleness must be essentially accidental, the substance of the incarnation being Christ's humanity.

This is why arguments based on the maleness of Christ are to me both insubstantial and offensive. If the maleness of Christ is to be understood as a key salvific characteristic of the incarnation, rather than a historical particular (rather like his height or shoe size), then the theological implication is that women are not included in the saving activity of the incarnation. On this understanding women, to put it bluntly, not only cannot be ordained, but cannot be saved.

That is why the 'impossibilist' argument is impossible for me to accept. I have more sympathy with other arguments against women's ordination, but ultimately no ecumenical, historical or practical considerations can trump for me the central theological truth that it is as male and female together that we are made in the image of God.

A truly redeemed priesthood (and episcopate) should therefore include both male and female. And as a historian, I am aware of how complex the historical situation actually is. Christian tradition is neither static nor uniform on this or any other point, and I believe that ongoing Christian history is itself a sphere in which the Holy Spirit continues to guide and inspire us.

It is clear to me that, as a body, the Church of England cannot hold two opposing views on women's ordination simultaneously. It has been declared in Synod that both those who assent to and those who dissent from women's ordination can be considered loyal Anglicans, and it is clear that both you and I hold our very different views in good conscience andwith integrity.

But this is very different from saying that official church policy is that both views are equally correct, which some of the 'structural' proposals assume. To set up separate dioceses or other structures which did not have an interchangeable ministry with the rest of the Church of England, and whose bishops, clergy and laity were not in communion with those in the rest of the Church of England, would be to set up a separate church altogether. There is only a semantic (and perhaps a financial) difference between suggestions for such alternative structures, and between two different churches.

Avoiding barriers

There is no appetite at all in the wider church for such division, and it would set up permanent barriers to further conversation and working together. It follows that the only two options which might work to allow the Church of England to continue to include both you and I are a SCM or a CoP.

Personally, I believe that a SCM could work, as I explained earlier, as it would allow local informal arrangements to be made. But I hear and understand that many of those of you who cannot accept women's ordination mistrust that such arrangements would in fact be made, or could not accept such informal arrangements theologically. If that is the case, then a CoP is the only realistic way forward, and that is why I am now prepared to accept it and urge you to consider it also. A CoP is a major compromise from'my side' of the debate, as it means establishing divisions between bishops and parishes based entirely on gender (or even, in some versions of the proposals, based on individual bishops' opinions on this issue such that a male bishop holding 'unsound' views might be considered unacceptable).

But because I recognize and have heard the extent of the pain and fear felt by many opponents to women's ordination, this is a compromise I would be prepared - just - to make, in order to demonstrate good faith and a commitment to working together with those of you who fundamentally disagree with me.[I found this statement interesting for obvious reasons.]

A necessary compromise

In assessing the draft proposals before us, my guiding principle has been to try to give away as much of what I'd like as possible in the hope of helping you to feel able to vote for the legislation. But I can't compromise away the entire point of having women and men together in the threefold ministry of the church, or the theological integrity of our church.[And neither can we; so what do we do?]
I hear and appreciate the argument that says since none of us really wants a CoP, there is no point in bothering with one. If it is really the case (to put it very bluntly indeed) that all those of you who oppose women's ordination will leave the Church of England when a woman is ordained bishop whatever a CoP says, then there is indeed no point in crafting one. But I hope and pray that this is not the case. A CoP appears to be the only option we are left with, and I believe that we can and must find the necessary goodwill and good humour to make it work for all of us.

Bringing Our Sexual Lives Before the Cross

In this week's Catholic Herald, John Haldane Professor of Philosophy at the University of St. Andrews and Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Culture brings an important opinion to those who denounce the Church's moral teaching as 'homophobic' or too narrow and rigid. This article once again reminded me of the excellent book Love and Responsibility by Pope JPII. Knowing human nature and deeply reflecting on my own throughout Lent and now into Holy Week, I realise how often humans inflict charges such as these on to others who in reality I suspect have an element of bad consciences themselves. This point is also brought out by Professor Haldane. In our weakest moments as humans this is the tactic that is sadly used.

Using labels in a pejorative sense to discredit the Church as an unloving institution, and those who hold them as unloving people, is a result of being confronted over Catholic teachings, who in their own practice or someone they know and love who might practise a sexual life that is at odds with Catholic morality. The real concern for our culture today ought to be how disfigured our understanding of what love is. Love has now come to mean absolute tolerance for all behaviour so long as it is lived with the integrity of the persons involved. The Church has some serious catechesis to do in this area of love. The culture is attacking the Church's moral teaching at present with a great vengeance and it is in these times that God calls upon his people to remain committed to all that he has given to the Church in sacred scripture, tradition and reason. So, due to the fact that we all have to bring our sexual lives before the cross, why is denouncing the Church's moral teaching as 'homophobic' wrong? Professor Haldane writes,

So what are we to say? I recall a Presbyterian minister saying that we all bring our sexual lives before the cross. That was beautifully put and is absolutely the right attitude for a Christian. Humankind carries certain inherited wounds the effects of which include, in Augustine's language, a darkening of the intellect and a disturbance of the passions.

These affect all of our lives, including our sexuality. A mark of failing to acknowledge this is finding fault in the sexual desires and activities of others: judging someone overly sexual, or unduly repressed and so on. Because we are all subject to the same flaws it is wrong to judge others in their persons, though social behaviour may be a necessary matter for comment. It is right and important to bring our flawed sexualities before the cross because there is something mysterious about sex which lies close to our spiritual condition and which we will only ever discern in the eternal light of Christ.

Catholic teaching is generally misunderstood, even among other Christians who have abandoned traditional understandings and for whom any criticism of homosexuality can only seem a matter of prejudice. Some Christian denominations have given up the idea of sexual order and see everything, barring what is wrong on other grounds (such as violence, abuse, etc), as "ok" within the context of settled heterosexual unions. This is the suggestion of the evangelical group Christian Nymphos whose slogan is "Married sex, spicy, the way God intended it to be". It can then seem mere prejudice to exclude same-sex relations from this.

That is not at all the Catholic position. It holds that sex is for the sake of marriage and that marriage is a form of divinely ordained, exclusive and life-long union in which the partners must remain open to procreation and constrain sexual activity within a norm of chastity. Moreover, it does not believe that everyone has a right to sex of whatever sort and to whatever extent they choose in the context of consensual heterosexual relations. There is no right to sex any more than there is a right to happiness. Nor does it teach that homosexual sins are intrinsically graver than heterosexual ones. Much of what people get up to is infantile gratification and emotionally coarsening, but that is independent of the matter of the sex of the parties.

The Church teaches that religious life must include that special form of chastity that is celibacy. This precludes not only marriage and family, but also homosexual activity. The question of admission to religious life flows from this, and the Church has resolved that those disposed to sexual activity should not be admitted to celibate orders.

Also, given its view of the divinely ordained purposes of marriage, the Church maintains that it is a violation of that purpose and of the natural goods of marriage to admit homosexuals to that condition. Equally, however, the Church would, and does, object to a view of marriage that would affirm it as a sexual bonding without intent to be open to procreation.

In recent years I have had some dealings with Catholic homosexuals who are trying to live according to the Church's teachings. Sexual order is hard enough to achieve and maintain in our wildly sexualised society. It is shameful, therefore, that people who struggle to live what they judge to be Christian lives should be attacked by other Christians as "obstacles" and "repressed". This again is a measure of the secular world: the idea that desires judged and curbed on account of what are held to be deeper spiritual needs is treated as repressive.

Having four children of my own I am alert to the fact that young people have their own lives to make and that life decisions are theirs. The position of parents is to do what they should always have done: guide, love and support them. What is very difficult but also absolutely important is not to confuse love and judgment, which we are all apt to do - both to condemn and to excuse.

Read it all here.

Christ's Maleness and Women Priests: Dr. Threlfall-Holmes Weighs In

This morning in the post my April edition of New Directions arrived and so off to Mass I went and then to watch children train for gymnastics. While there, I turned to Dr. Threlfall-Holmes' article on 'Single Clause or Code?' Of course, I am for neither but what I found particularly interesting is her attempt at logic. In the article she draws a reference to Aquinas' theology of the incarnation and particularly its relationship to his sacramental terminology stating that 'Christ's maleness must be essentially accidental, the substance of the incarnation being Christ's humanity.' From this, this is what she deduces from Aquinas' sacramental terminology in relationship to salvation. She writes,

This is why arguments based on the maleness of Christ are to me both insubtstantial and offensive. If the maleness of Christ is to be understood as a key salvific characteristic of the incarnation, rather than a historical particular (rather like his height or shoe size), then the theological implication is that women are not included in the saving activity of the incarnation. On this understanding women, to put it bluntly, not only cannot be ordained, but cannot be saved.

This is why the 'impossibilist' argument is impossible for me to accept. I have more sympathy with other arguments against women's ordination, but ultimately no ecumenical, historical or practical considerations can trump for me the central theological truth that it is as male and female together that we are made in the image of God.

I am one of the priests that she mentions (though not by name) in the article that she came by to visit. I am probably one of the ones she labelled an 'impossibilist'. I blogged on this visit here. What I would like is for this quotation from her article in New Directions to be discussed logically and theologically before I state my reasons for rejecting both the logical and theological problems I have with this quotation.

What she displays for us most clearly and objectively within this article as far as I can see is the reality of the sexual 'traits' within the differing sexes which are both created in the image of God. [This is not a negative thing, simply an observation of a wonderful trait in women.] What I mean is, the article clearly shows how she, as a woman, demonstrates that her capacity for abstraction is bound up, in an integral way, with intuition and 'feeling'. She moves us more from the 'thing' to the 'person' within the article. Whereas, if I were to write it, I would have concentrated more on the objective content and not confused the personal and the factual the way she does in her argument. One can clearly see this sort of difference in Christ's teaching if you look at it objectively and how he exercises his ministry within his masculine integrity.This has huge implications for Christ's masculinity on the cross at his crucifixion in union with the priestly sacrifice of the priest who offers Christ as gift to the Father on the altar at Mass.

This is not a 'sexist' comment it is simply an objective acknowldegment of the wonderful creative differences between male and female. To imply that Christ's masculinity as the Son of God is simply a matter of a historical particular completely misses the point of the issue of creation and redemption that is involved in the theology of the sacramental life of priesthood.

This is only one quick point that really needs fleshing out but it came to mind and I thought I would put it out there to get the discussion moving.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols to Become Archbishop of Westminster

According to Damian and Ruth, the new Archbishop of Westminster will be Archbishop Vincent Nichols. Congratulations to Archbishop Nichols and may God bless the Catholic Church of England and Wales as she ministers to Christ's people in these lands! Here is Damian Thompson.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols will be the next Archbishop of Westminster, according to Ruth Gledhill. This is good news! The Archbishop is a talented man with a true pastoral touch. He has enormously raised the profile of Catholicism in Birmingham and will now do the same for England and Wales, I am sure.

I'll post later on what this means for the Church, but let me first offer hearty congratulations to Archbishop Vincent (and to Ruth, for her scoop).