Is the Pope Catholic?

"Williams finds Pullman novel unpersuasive"

Is this one of the most ridiculous headlines going?  It would surely have made a much bigger headline if Rowan had found it persuasive!

The actual article is about the book "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ" and Rowan's review of it. The full review can be found here, with others by Bishop Alan Wilson here, and the Church Times here.

The question that I want to explore is whether this might become one of those cultural events that Christians "have" to partake in so that we have a view!  So far this has happened to me with The Passion Of The Christ and The Da Vinci Code.  Neither were films that I particularly wanted to see, but in both cases I felt that I "ought" to see them.  I was nearly tempted by the same logic into getting a copy of this book, but the reviews that I read led me to believe that I would learn little more of use and so I have decided not to.

Would I do the same again with the films?  I actually found The Passion of the Christ particularly moving, and with hindsight would see it for my own sake - but the Da Vinci code?  No chance!

So what might happen?

So what will the Pope and Archbishop do with their job swap?  (H/T Bosco Peters for the story).

Lets assume that Rowan realises that he has to act fast.  Under the imprimatur of Papal infallibility he could approve married, women and gay priests and women bishops and popes.  He could then authorise the sharing of the sacraments with other denominations.  This of course would leave a number of quite conservative Roman Catholics feeling a bit disgruntled.

Pope Benedict on the other hand would find that he wasn't able to do anything - everyone would just stick two fingers up at him (one if you are reading this in America).  However, after he realised that he didn't want to go back (and nor would Rowan) he could settle in - approve the Anglican Covenant and offer a special welcome to those in the RC Church who were disgruntled with the direction that had been taken - forgetting that obedience means when you don't like the outcome as well as when you do.

Many of the more liberal CofE would of course now convert, and lo and behold problem solved...  Well not quite - I doubt that Anglican Mainstream would be too happy, but of course they could separate off and join an evangelical grouping.  At least if we are going to have separate denominations it would help if everyone shared more of their beliefs than at present!

Even the Lutherans might be happy - a spokesman, Loof Lirpa, welcomed the  suggestion and expressed a desire to be in Communion with a Rowan led RC Church.

Well, I can dream - but I am not even sure that this is my dream!  After all, the next pope could be Peter Akinola!

Robin Hood Tax - A Good thing?

It is also clear that such taxes could raise significant additional revenues of the order of $200bn - $400bn with minimal impact on the real economy or retail consumers.  The tax will have a highly progressive final incidence that falls mainly on the top income earners and wealth holders in society.  Report on Robin Hood Web site

When I first heard about the Robin Hood tax I was suspicious.  It sounds such a good idea and recently the Archbishop of Canterbury has written in support of it.  However, my concern was that if you raise that amount of money it has to come from somewhere - and the people it comes from aren't going to like it!  I decided to do a little research and found that the report from which the first quote came also contained:

The world’s top 1000 commercial banks have reported profits of between $700 billion and close to $1 trillion in recent years with the exception of last year when the financial crisis cut deep into these profits

So what is being proposed is to reduce banking profits by half - and we think that the banks aren't going to do anything about it?  And I'm not the only one to have thought of this: Ed West in the Telegraph and Church Mouse have raised similar concerns.

My other concern is that the motivation for this seems wrong to me.  Bankers are making so much money that most of us just gasp and someone suggests lets take some of it off them...  Well why not take some off Premiership footballers, or film stars, or business leaders?  There is a second issue behind this which to my mind may well have more merit, but seems to be getting less attention, and that is the impact that it might have in reducing the number of high turnover trades taking place in the financial markets.

Yesterday at Diocesan Synod we had a presentation on Giving for Life - the CofEs new stewardship approach.  This is rooted in a generous response to God's generosity to us, rather than, as have previous approaches, the fact that we are skint!  What is the motivation behind the Robin Hood Tax?

If it would be a good idea to reduce the short term trading in city institutions then let us debate that rather than implementing it on the back of an emotive marketing campaign about what we could do with the money raised, without looking too closely at the other impacts that it will have.  I have searched the web and failed to find anything looking at this - it is probably there - but doesn't seem to be very prominent in the current campaign.

But the implications are... ?

Divine intervention may have played a part in the change in fortune for Grimsby Town FC – after the club received the blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_post.asp?id=90804

 Do you think he looks worried that praying for Grimsby to win was frivolous?

Fascinating story.  Now what I want to know is has he been praying for the future of the Anglican Communion and God hasn't been giving the answer he wanted, or has he not been praying for it?

Alternatively of course it might just be a fluke that Grimsby won J

Lent starts here!

http://www.cartoonchurch.com/content/cc/lent/

No, I'm not going to give up blogging for lent (shame I hear you cry!).  Instead I am going to continue, but with added Christian Aid!  As for the past few years Christian Aid are running "Count Your Blessings" which is a scheme to help you reflect on other parts of the world and raise money at the same time.  Today's challenge:

883 million people worldwide often don’t know where their next meal is coming from.  Give 10p for each hour between your last meal and your next.

Well, lets say that is 5 hours, as I am writing in the afternoon and had a late lunch, so that's 50p.

I read a good blog on lenten discipline, so using the Vernacular Curate's pattern ...

There goes the chocolate until after Easter - which might also have beneficial effect on the waistline.  Lets just hope I don't forget like I did one year and have a choccy biscuit without even realising L.  Still I remember reading someone somewhere saying that it is good to fail at your lenten discipline because it reminds you that you can achieve nothing alone!

I too will be blogging and I have bought the Archbishops Lent book by Lucy Winkett - so that can join my pile of unread books (hope not).

As I am in the same Archdeaconry as my Vernacular mate I too have been offered an extra day off a week during lent.  There has been much talk among the clergy about how this isn't helpful, life is even busier in lent - so please can we have the time off at another  time.  With little experience of a clerical lent I think that our Area Bishop had it spot on - if it is not possible to find an extra day off in lent then we are doing too much and need to stop doing some things - if you do what you've always done you'll get what you've always got.  I have put these days in my diary, but to do so meant having to take some other things out - perhaps easier as a curate than an incumbent, but the principle holds.  As for taking on something new... not sure about that one for me, though I am planning to attend the Churches Together for Chesham Lent lectures which has an excellent set of speakers.

And finally... time - that old chestnut - well, not looking good on this front - but with the extra time off I think I will be less stressed and am planning to make time to read a new book!

And with people out there watching in there might just be the odd extra incentive to keep things going.

Is this helpful?

What this argument comes down to is this: The Church has been run for a couple of centuries by men. It’s now full of women. So what we need is more men to run it.  George Pitcher's Blog

I just love this kind of debunking J - unfortunately it isn't L.  The article starts with a true statement:

Yesterday it was claimed that there was a “testosterone deficit” in Church congregations.

and further down includes the quote that I started with, but in between the two is included:

Now, I suppose an argument could be constructed that, because women are in the majority in church attendance, greater efforts have to be made to attract men back to worship. So we need more male clergy, some of whom will be put off ordination to priesthood by the prospect of women bishops.

So there we have it, a perfectly true article, but one which if given a cursory reading allows one to think that someone - other than the author - has proposed this preposterous notion, which the author can then bat away.

The problem is that most of us read things cursorily these days - it was only when I went looking for the source, and couldn't find it, that I realised that the source of the argument being debunked was the author himself - and he generated 41 comments about it the last time that I looked!

Now, this might all be considered very good fun, but it hardly seems to be in the spirit of the Archbishop's presidential address (which, Mad Priest, I haven't read either) to make up ridiculous arguments for those who disagree with you.

Archbishops letter

Following the American General Convention the Archbishop of Caterbury has written that:

9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. ...

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502

My concern about this statement is that it seems to imply that only those who fully live the Gospel are allowed to have a representative function in the Church. Now call me picky, but I don't think any of us achieve that. I know of one priest who says that churches should have a big banner over the door - sinners only - and I believe that that applies to the priests too. I also liked the story of the priest who was asked whether he was a Christian and he said "I'm trying to be". Having googled this I know that there are a large body of people who will say that being a Christian is about grace - fine - so what makes people ineligible for a representative role?

Or is this something to do with hypocrisy? Many of our other sins are hidden and known only to us. If someone is living in such a union, but hides the fact, does that make them fit for a representative function? I would argue not and that the action of the Americans is at least honest about where they stand in a way that the CofE isn't.

For me a large part of being a priest is about an openness and honesty about who I am - hiding away parts of myself for fear of what others might think or say is to me denying God - and yet I find myself doing it. But at least I confess it and don't make a policy out of it.