BISHOPS and LEADERS, PART 4

There are many church bodies and bishops who are not particularly concerned with apostolic succession. Generally they leave such concerns to those who do require it, but it is not a defining detail in their own ministry. I grew up and pastored in such an environment. In my youth, Apostolic Succession was never a topic of conversation at home, and we knew for certain that our christian relatives and ancestors, both lay and ordained, were about God’s work and demonstrators of holiness and Christian virtue. It is a tiny number of Christians today who believe that only their way and group will be in heaven.

LITURGICAL BISHOPS – In the various Lutheran church bodies, we now find bishops. Originally, when various Lutheran churches developed, usually in national groupings, there was sometimes apostolic succession. The Church of Sweden, for example, became Lutheran in toto. Later, in the new world, it was subsumed in the 1962 merger of the ULCA (early German immigration), Soumi (Finnish), the “happy danes” who drank alcoholic spirits, and the Slovak Zion LC. one of two Slovak immigrant churches, as well as the Swedes,which all were independent Lutheran bodies. Apostolic lines became so blurred as to become impossible to untangle.  When I was first ordained into the then LCA, we used the title synod president. This later changed to bishop. The bishops functioned the same way as apostolic bishops. They ordained and provided pastoral oversight to allpastors and clergy in their synod or district. In my synod all congrergations used a common liturgical service. There were two sacraments recognized, and a number of rites. Frequency of Holy Communion varied from 2 times a year to every service. Most common was about once a month with quarterly next common. Many visitors to a Lutheran church would find the service closely resembling a Catholic mass, although the desire of Lutherans to separate themselves from Catholics precluded using that term. Lutheran bishops had no uncertainty that they were called by God to the ministry, and that it was valid. Nor were their congregants and pastors in doubt.

LESS LITURGICAL BISHOPS – Many main line Protestant church bodies choose not to use the term bishop but has leaders who exercise pastoral and/or administrative authority over pastors and preachers. Often their actions were almost identical to a bishop’s function. As to liturgy, every group which holds a service by definition has a liturgy, a work of the people.  It may change radically from service to service, yet is always a liturgy. Even a quiet Quaker gathering qualifies.

The Methodist Churches, descended from John Wesley, a clergyman of the Anglican church for his entire life. He founded the Methodism renewal movement  in England among Anglicanism, a method of Christian life, which became today’s Methodist Church. Methodist bishops in function have very similar authority to those of apostolic bishops. Liturgy, theology, and culture expressions are main differences. It would be a rare Methodist congregation which is “high church” in the U.S.A. today. Most are definitely “low church” in liturgy, as are the great majority of Anglicans in the U.S. A., England and worldwide.

INDEPENDENT LOOSE BISHOPS  – Those bishops who are totally independent and have no one to whom they are responsible have the capability to do the most damage. Often they are self-consecrated or appointed. They are not recognized in their office by reputable church bodies. It may be damage to congregants through hurtful teachings or practices. It also may be damaging to responsible church bodies as his practices or teachings hurt the reputations or cause confusion among the faithful.

SOME FINAL PERSONAL THOUGHTS – One of the blessings I’ve received from apostolic succession is the strong identification with 2000 years of Christian predecessors. The fundamentals of Christian life and practice are vivid to me in this history.

It also has strengthened my love and respect for my fellow members wherever in the body of Christ, for my time as a Methodist and as a Lutheran…, and helps explains my problems as an independent christian.

EPISCOPI VAGANTES GROUP SCORE CARD

There are a variety of ways to consider what is a bishop. Churches from Rome and major Orthodoxy to tiny Protestant groups, as well as independent bishops aligned with just one small house church may carry the title bishop. Today, a look at those who require apostolic succession,

APOSTOLIC CHURCHES  - Concerning bishops, nothing is clear cut once we get beyond the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. These two jurisdictions have bishops recognized as bishops with apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is a major preoccupation to churches and clergy which value and track it. It means that ordinations and consecrations can be traced back to the apostles by an unbroken line. Thus, their sacramental acts are valid. An act can be valid but irregular (i.e. – done but not authorized by Rome, ancient Orthodoxy, or a valid Anglican body.) One difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is that Orthodoxy historically has been preoccupied with individual church body ethnic makeup.  Rome and Lutheran scholars, for example, often charge Orthodoxy is beset with caesaropapsim. This short hand, believe it or not, for “the king should be head of the Church.  Modern day examples (not an exhaustive list) include England where the queen is titular head of the Canterbury Anglican churches, the Soviet Union which oversaw all church life, and China, where today permission is required for a church to be public.

APOSTOLIC BUT SEPARATED – The Anglican Church is recognized as also having succession, but identified by Rome as separated brethren. In recent decades calls from several quarters question some recent Anglican orders because of possible heretical behavior. These may include acts by The Episcopal Church, a body of some Anglicans in the U.S.A.  They have now an “impaired” relationship with Canterbury due to their ordinations and consecrations of gay, lesbian, as well as other female candidates as priests and bishops. Their status is yet to be decided by Canterbury. British Anglicans tend to talk such decisions to death before making any change to the status quo. This habit may be part of the psychology of an island nation where it is difficult to get away from each other.

APOSTOLIC SEPARATED GROUP TWO. There are other such churches.  ICAN (begun by the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church calls itself the second largest Catholic Church after Rome. This church split from Rome during WW II over Vatican policies with Italy and Germany. It includes a number of national Catholic bodies worldwide. There are also other various national Catholic churches independent of Rome and each other.  A large number of independent Orthodox bodies exist which are unevenly recognized by the traditional Orthodox bodies.

GROUP THREE. Technically, a single bishop may consecrate another as bishop. This has spawned a great number of Episcopi Vagantes, many totally independent bishops,  They may be  supported by a small group of churches, or even a single small body, but all claim apostolic succession due to the consecration by a bishop with valid orders.

Protestants are often surprised by the large number of independent Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican bodies. While not so many as Protestant denominations, it causes much pastoral, administrative, and damage control efforts by the big three, as well as confusion among the membership.

Some may remember Mike Warnke, author of The Satan Seller. He developed a very profitable ministry sharing his time as a satanist, and then as a comic.  His claims in the book and lectures later were documented in detail as false.  He has developed in more recent years a very lucrative ministry to a handful of congregations with his 5th wife following his consecration by an Orthodox bishop as a bishop. It is an excellent example of an Orthodox episcopus vagans consecration setting up another Orthodox episcupus vagans, here Mike Warnke.

Next post will examine bishop lines not concerned with Apostolic Succession.   Fr. Orthohippo

Episcopi vagantes

These two photos are of  liturgical church bishops from recognized church bodies.  No one questions that they are bishops by the standards of their church bodies. Sometimes we run into a bishop who seems different.  Episcopi vagantes are bishops, but are these bishops like regular bishops? Just what makes a person a bishop? What makes a bishop not really a bishop? How did he become one? What do the established churches do when an episcopus vagans (bishop) comes around?  This may be a question you have never asked yourself.

Yet it is fascinating to study. First some definitions.  A later post will explore more examples.

Episcopi vagantes (singular: episcopus vagans) are persons who have been consecrated as Christian bishops outside the structures and canon law of the established churches and are in communion with no generally recognized diocese. Also included are those who have communion with a group so small that it appears to exist solely for the alleged bishop’s sake.[1]

The term is Latin and means “wandering bishops” (or “stray bishops”).Those to whom it is applied see it as pejorative.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church mentions as the main streams of succession deriving from episcopi vagantes in the twentieth century those founded by Arnold Mathew, Joseph René Vilatte, and Leon Chechemian.[1] Others that could be added are those derived from Aftimios Ofiesh, Carlos Duarte Costa, and Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục

Theological issues

In Western Christianity it has traditionally been taught, since as far back as the time of the Donatist controversy, that any bishop can consecrate any other baptised man as a bishop provided that he observes the minimum requirements for the sacramental validity of the ceremony. This means that the consecration is considered valid even if it flouts certain ecclesiastical laws and even if the participants areschismatics or heretics.

Some theologians, within the Roman Catholic Church and elsewhere, question whether all such consecrations have effect, on the grounds that an ordination is for service within a specific Christian church. Therefore an ordination ceremony that concerns only the individual himself does not, they say, correspond to the definition of an ordination and is without effect. The Holy See has not commented on the correctness or erroneousness of this theory. Other theologians, notably those of the Eastern Orthodox Church, dispute this notion, but it can be seen how such an understanding opens up the possibility of valid but irregular consecrations proliferating outside the structures of the “official” denominations.

A distinction is also made in Catholic theology between the conferral of the sacramental powers associated with the episcopacy and the conferral of jurisdiction: the authority of a bishop to govern his people. In Roman Catholic canon law, a bishop’s sacramental power is to some extent entwined with his jurisdiction (or lack of it): jurisdiction is required for valid celebration of the sacraments of Penance and Matrimony.  Jurisdiction can be conferred only within the official structures of the church under the Pope. Catholic episcopi vagantes sometimes appeal to the principle that, in emergency situations, jurisdiction is automatically “supplied” even where it has not explicitly been conferred (“ecclesia supplet“).

The Eastern Orthodox Church‘s position has been summarized as follows:

While accepting the canonical possibility of recognizing the existence (υποστατόν) of sacraments performed outside herself, (the Eastern Orthodox Church) questions their validity (έγκυρον) and certainly rejects their efficacy (ενεργόν).”^[2] It sees “the canonical recognition (αναγνώρισις) of the validity of sacraments performed outside the Orthodox Church (as referring) to the validity of the sacraments only of those who join the Orthodox Church (individually or as a body).”^[2]

This applies to the validity and efficacy of the ordination of bishops and the other sacraments, not only of the Independent Catholic Churches, but also of all other Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

[edit]History

Many episcopi vagantes claim succession from the Old Catholic See of Utrecht, or from Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic Churches. A few others derive their orders from Roman Catholic bishops that have consecrated their own bishops after disputes with the Holy See.

Many, if not most, episcopi vagantes are associated with Independent Catholic Churches, and in some cases the bishop is almost the only clergyman of the group. They may be very liberal or very conservative. Episcopi vagantes may also include several conservative “Continuing Anglicans” who have broken with the Anglican Communion over various issues such as Prayer Book revision, ordination of women and the ordination of unmarried, non-celibate individuals (including homosexuals).

[edit]Particular consecrations of episcopi vagantes

When it declared devoid of canonical effect the consecration ceremony conducted by Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục for theCarmelite Order of the Holy Face group at midnight of 31 December1975, the Holy See refrained from pronouncing on its validity. It made the same statement with regard also to later ordinations by those bishops, saying that, “as for those who have already thus unlawfully received ordination or any who may yet accept ordination from these, whatever may be the validity of the orders (quidquid sit de ordinum validitate), the Church does not and will not recognize their ordination (ipsorum ordinationem), and will consider them, for all legal effects, as still in the state in which they were before, except that the … penalties remain until they repent” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree Episcopi qui alios of 17 September1976 – Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1976, page 623).

A similar declaration was issued with regard to Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo‘s conferring of episcopal ordination on four men – all of whom, by virtue of previous Independent Catholic consecrations, claimed already to be bishops – on 24 September2006: the Holy See, as well as stating that, in accordance with Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, all five men involved incurred automatic (“latae sententiae“) excommunication through their actions, declared that “the Church does not recognise and does not intend in the future to recognise these ordinations or any ordinations derived from them, and she holds that the canonical state of the four alleged bishops is the same as it was prior to the ordination.”^[3]

In contrast, the Holy See has questioned neither the validity nor the canonical effect of the consecrations that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre performed in 1988 for the service of the relatively numerous followers of the Traditionalist CatholicSociety of St. Pius X that he had founded.

Some have questioned the mental capacity of Archbishop Ngô to form the requisite intention to consecrate. On this question it would be extremely difficult to obtain a definitive objective judgement. Ngô was advanced in age and was reportedly experiencing a dementia at the time of his actions in question.

ANYONE YOU KNOW?

Lots of tension when anyone gets into a discussion about what behaviors and commitment are normative with Christians. The description below portrays a very common approach to Christianity.  Often written and preached about, the person described here probably sits close to you at services on Sunday. It might even portray you at some point in your life.

“Sometimes, the world of fiction gives us descriptions that are more incisive than many a theological description. Read the following excerpt from a fiction book that I am reading. The book is based in very early 20th century England, before WWI. But, see if the description does not actually fit far too many Christians of whatever stripe.

Fortunately, in the case of Terrance . . . he believed in God and the Church. Not, of course, the kind of honest and open-hearted belief that would also have protected him . . . no, indeed. He believed in the comfortable, dozing-in-the-pew sort of orthodoxy that promised him Heaven in return for the weekly offering and an occassional high tea for the clergy. He liked his clergymen modern–that is, a fellow who would talk to him about hunting and dogs and fishing, and not about uncomfortable things like the state of the poor and the exploitation of the mill-worker, or abstract things like morals and conscience. He certainly was not comfortable with those who took too close an interest in the state of his soul, but preferred those who reassured him without actually saying anything that his soul was in good repair and a place waited for him in Heaven–a Heaven populated by Cambridge men who would see his worth at a glance and give him the respect and deference he simply was not getting here on earth. That this Heaven would also include plebeians who would fawn over his every word and beg to serve him went without saying.”

via 2009 January | OrthoCuban.

Gidget the Chihuahua has left us

Sad news.  Gidget the Chihuahua has  left us.

Fr. Orthohippo joins Fr. Orthoduck and wishes to communicate the sad news that Gidget the Chihuahua, star of several Taco Bell commercials in the 1990’s has left us at the age of 15 after a massive stroke. News of the passing of Gidget was released yesterday evening through the Associated Press. News of the passing of Gidget rapidly spread through our mammalian community and has brought sadness to dogs, hippos, and ducks alike. The news release read in part:

Although she was hard of hearing, Gidget was otherwise in good health up to the day of her death, eating well and playing with her favorite squeaky toys at the home of trainer Sue Chipperton, McElhatton said.

“She was retired. She lived like a queen, very pampered,” McElhatton said.

Gidget was found at a kennel and wasn’t show quality, McElhatton said; she had an undershot jaw and huge ears.

But Gidget knew she was a star, McElhatton said.

“She was a prima donna, basically. She absolutely knew when she was on camera,” McElhatton said.

In a 1997 Taco Bell television commercial, Gidget was seen as a male dog who, through the magic of special effects and a voice actor, proclaims in a richly accented voice: “Yo quiero Taco Bell” – Spanish for “I want Taco Bell.”

Viewers were charmed. What was supposed to be a single ad became a campaign that ran from 1997 to 2000.

Her life was dogged by controversy as some activists insisted that the commercials promoted Hispanic stereotypes. Nevertheless, she persevered and was eventually the animal star on Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde, as the co-actress of Reese Witherspoon. All of us animals thought that she had stolen scene after scene from Ms. Witherspoon. The animal community, especially the Latino animal community deeply mourns her passing.

ME,ME, AND ME, OH MY.

What is the main problem in our culture today? Most of the time scholarly answers are impersonal. A mother of three young children offers her insights  into this question. She does not shy away from her own shortcomings. Which brand of Christianity is of no import here, as her analysis covers all of us Christians, even you and me. Especially you and me. Jennifer Hartline speaks to us as fellow Christians on our journeys of life.

“If you had to boil it all down to one word, how would you describe the problem with our culture today? How would you name the root cause of the myriad terrible ills that plague us?

Today that thought came to mind, and the answer was quick to follow: the word is ME.

We are suffering individually and collectively from the destructive sin of ME. You could call it pride, selfishness, narcissism, greed, ambition – all those things and more,certainly. I can best sum it up by calling it the great sin of ME.

Everything is about ME. Life is, and should be, about ME and what I want, what I decide will make ME happy, and get ME the most I can possibly get. Decisions made by other people must not make any requirements of ME, or place any restrictions on ME. If they do, I have every right to disregard them, denounce them, and demand change.

There is no moral code outside the one I write for ME. I have no obligation to anyone’s best interest other than mine. I work only for ME and I am still entitled to take from someone else what I feel I deserve but did not earn myself. I can make vows that suit ME today and break them next week or next year if they no longer suit ME or make ME as happy as I deserve to be.

If I feel something is right for ME, then it is right, period. No one else has any authority to tell ME otherwise, not even God. Because, after all, if God does exist, then He should want ME to be happy. It’s not God making all these moral demands, it’s man-made religion. And religion is definitely not for ME.

Welcome to the Age of ME, where each person is an autonomous god unto themselves. Welcome to the Age of the Child – and I don’t mean a person under age 18. I mean an era where adult maturity and reasoning has been thrown into the consuming fire of ME and it is deemed perfectly acceptable to live as though the universe revolves around only you – like your average toddler.

The curious thing about this Age is how its people have elevated themselves to the highest authority, declared their own personal sovereignty and power, and yet they have not brilliantly solved their own problems. In fact, they don’t seem to notice that their kingdom is crumbling around them. If troubles persist, it is because the last vestiges of moral authority have not yet been purged, they shout. Once all restrictions are lifted and everyone is free, then all will be right and trouble will cease.

Mortal man, who cannot create life of his own power, who cannot do so much as call a blade of grass into existence, has raised himself up to the highest throne, and having removed the Creator of All, has sat down to stare at his navel and blame the resulting, descending chaos on God.

O People of faith, rise up! You are the only remedy for this childish age of self-absorption and irresponsibility! To place your life under the truly sovereign authority of God is not to lose your freedom, but to gain it. The people of this age no longer believe that, and it is up to us to show them again.

What is needed is mature, adult faith, with a mature understanding of God’s supreme authority and our obligations as beloved sons and daughters of the Most High. Yes, we have obligations – to God first, then to each other, and finally to ourselves. We are not a collection of autonomous beings. We are a human family, and God is the founder and head of that family. We owe Him a debt of obedience and allegiance that is our sheer joy to pay! He has lavished on us all that He is and all that He has out of everlasting love for us. We are, indeed, obliged to acknowledge and revere Him, in gratitude for our lives and our redemption. It is not demeaning to us, it is our honor.

What the egos of this age fail to understand is that God does not require more of us than He has given himself. He does not rule over us with an iron fist and humiliate us as slaves. He reaches out to us with gentle hands to raise us up to His heart. If He asks for our lives it is because He has already given His for our sakes. He can rightly ask us for everything, because He has given everything, and so all He asks for, He has provided.

How is it, then, that it is so offensive to revere God? What other ruler or king would leave his rightful throne to go in search of a thief or a murderer or a rebel, and having found him, wrap him in fine linen and embrace him? What other king or ruler would then set the criminal free while bearing the punishment himself?

All I see today are people living as gods of themselves, answering to no one but themselves, serving no one but themselves. The prideful, clouded and fallible judgment of man is being placed above the infallible and supreme authority of God, and amazingly, people are still clueless as to why the result is despair and chaos. It’s like watching some idiot sink into quicksand because he won’t admit he’s going under and reach out for your hand. Our era is drowning in the sin of ME, and rescue will only come in the form of humble obedience.

Now is the time for the faithful to demonstrate the hope that comes through recognizing the sovereignty of God in our lives. “Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.” Romans 1:5 “This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world.” I John 5:3

It’s time the world was reminded once again that abundant life and freedom come only from God when we humbly bow before Him. He is Lord for all eternity, and one day, “every knee shall bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:10-11

That pretty much takes care of ME.”

—–

Jennifer Hartline is a Catholic Army wife and stay-at-home mother of three precious kids who writes frequently on topics of Catholic faith and daily living. She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online.
All I see today are people living as gods of themselves, answering to no one but themselves, serving no one but themselves. The prideful, clouded and fallible judgment of man is being placed above the infallible and supreme authority of God, and amazingly, people are still clueless as to why the result is despair and chaos.

www.catholic.org.

Musical Instruments in Worship?

Several Protestant denominations and most orthodox do not use musical instruments in sabbath services. Have you ever wondered why they would elect the not use them?  Fr. Ernesto gives an explanation in a series about musical instruments in worship. Here is part of that explanation. Some of the historical quotes he offers may surprise those of us who do use them. By the way, the Orthodox do have acapella singing. If you want to read more from Fr. Ernesto, go to the orthoduck-orthocuban link on my blog roll.

“We often get asked why the Eastern Orthodox do not use instruments in worship. While it is true that some of the Greek Orthodox will use a piano or an organ in worship, generally all Orthodox sing a capella. What it may surprise you to find out is that the use of instruments in worship was not accepted until quite recently in church history. Below are a few quotes that might surprise you.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS: “Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize.” (Thomas Aquinas, Bingham’s Antiquities, Vol. 3, page 137)

ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO: “Musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship.” (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius, yes THAT Athanasius.)

MARTIN LUTHER: “The Early Reformers, when they came out of Rome, removed them [organs] as the monuments of idolatry. Luther called the organ an ensign of Baal” (John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 6, Harper & Brothers, 1883, p. 762)

ERASMUS “We have brought into our churches certain operatic and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words as I hardly think was ever in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes, and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them. Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time learning these whining tones.” (Erasmus, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:19)

JEAN CAUVIN (JOHN CALVIN): “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, the restoration of other shadows of the law.”

JOHN WESLEY: “I have no objection to the instruments of music in our chapels, providing they are neither seen nor heard.”

CHARLES SPURGEON: “I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery.”

via OrthoCuban.

A CATHOLIC VIEW –

Mark Shea gives an understanding which is not tied to one’s politics.

Rather, he ties his insights to his faith, here a Catholic View.  It could as easily be your particular faith.  You may not like all his conclusions. but there are views here to generate thought and reflection. Keep in mind Christianity, properly, is never tied to any specific political view, and comes into conflict at various points with the actions of every political system. There is strong temptation to tie our faith with our preferred politics, and mix the two so as to make it difficult to separate them, This is a struggle in our religious life.  I’m especially fond of Uncle Screwtape comments.

The Voice of the Pre-Reagan GOP

Mark P. Shea post

…and of much of the GOP today, longing for the day when all those embarrassing prolifers will just leave the country club:

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”

The GOP is more properly described as the “less pro-abortion” party than as the pro-life party. It has a large percentage of the base who are deeply and sincerely pro-life: that is, people who take seriously the Church’s teaching on the dignity and value of human life from conception to natural death. Dems have these too, in much *much* smaller numbers.

Then there are the prolifers of who oppose abortion, but who have no problem with war crimes. Indeed, some of these actually sneer at those who do have a problem with war crimes. Many of these are self-described Christians who are in the middle of a transitional project from “Christian” to “conservative” well described by Uncle Screwtape:

“About the general connection between Christianity and politics, our position is more delicate. Certainly we do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a major disaster. On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice.”

More and more, I am seeing this phenomenon among Christians on the Right who still do not get how deeply their faith is being co-opted into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Movement Conservatism. What do I mean? Well, I’m constantly getting email in from people in which their outrage about abortion is routinely joined to diatribes about cap-and-trade, global warming, Obama’s socialism, and so forth. Meanwhile, the same self-described Christtians and Catholics who are making these bizarre equivalencies are often (and in higher percentages than the general population) laboring with might and main to defend the torture and abuse of prisoners, to deride Christians who will not laugh at the Club Gitmo jokes, and to do everything in their power to thwart the clear and obvious teaching of two Popes and all the American bishops. The net effect is to make clear that what matters is not the Faith, nor even abortion per se, but abortion as a sort of gateway or shibboleth into immersion in Movement Conservatism–or whatever is left of it since the Bush/Cheney debacle. Conservative English Catholic novelist Piers Paul Read notices the same thing:

“Many of the Catholics I encountered on my tour had anti-abortion stickers on their cars. Abortion is an acute issue in the US in a way it is not in Britain. Here the debate is about the number of months after conception after which it should be unlawful to terminate a pregnancy. There the debate is about whether a termination should be lawful at all. A survey taken while I was on my travels showed that more than 50 per cent of Americans described themselves as “pro-Life”. My Catholic friends believe that there should be a total ban on abortion, as in Chile. Also coinciding with my tour was the honouring of President Obama at Notre Dame University — a scandal in the eyes of many bishops and my orthodox Catholic friends because of his consistent support of abortion, including partial-birth abortion in which the baby’s head is crushed as it leaves the womb. “An unborn baby is a person” read one of the stickers. It is impossible for a Christian to dissent from this view: God became man at the Annunciation, and in the account of the Visitation in St Luke’s Gospel the unborn John the Baptist “leaps in the womb” as he recognises Jesus in utero. However, there is a danger, it seems to me, that the fight for the right to life of the unborn comes to define Catholicism, to the neglect of core beliefs that God became man as Jesus of Nazareth, that he was the Messiah promised by the prophets of Israel, that he died for our sins on the Cross, the Eucharist authorities of the Pope.”

The net effect of all this is to make the Church’s witness on The Most Important Social Issue of our Time an adjunct of the Real Agenda, which has less and less to do with abortion and everything to do with GOP schemes for regaining power.

In short, the transformation of abortion into a sort of tribal shibboleth by which one says, “I am sympathetic to the conservative agenda” rather than saying “I am an apostle of Jesus Christ who died for the least of these” means that the Right is moving further and further away from being serious about abortion at all, to the point where the GOP’s most recent candidate was just a couple of clicks away from Nixon’s position in his obvious and sincere wish that the matter would just go away. (Recall that in 2000, the big push of the pro-life organizations was to get everybody on board with Dubya because if they didn’t the terrifying prospect of John McCain as the GOP candidate loomed like a ghastly specter over the whole election.) The next candidate, if the rulers of the party have any say about it, will be closer still to Nixon’s warm laissez faire embrace of this “market forces” way of culling the herd.

But the blame will lie, I think, with Christians who said to themselves “Seek first power and compromise with Mammon, War Fever and War Crimes, and all these things will be added as well.”

Screwtape concludes:

“For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that “only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations”. You see the little rift? “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That’s the game.”

Christians need to return to proclaiming the Faith, not to using it as a convenience for the building up of their favorite party. The same, of course, is true of liberals who routinely do the Kerry/Pelosi thing of wearing the ashes, citing Augustine in favor of their abortion politics, or prattling on ignorantly about Pius XXIII and “the Vatican II”. But one doesn’t expect jackasses to speak to Baalam. One expects self-described “committed orthodox Christians” to have some clue about what “seek first the Kingdom” means. Catholic Christians who claim to be pro-life while heaping contempt on inconvenient Church teaching about war crimes and torture or who use abortion as a sort of lead-in to their *real* agenda of a fight over tax laws or squabbles about the bailout should heed the warning of our Lord that those to whom much is given, much will be required. It’s fine to have strong views about all these secular and temporal issues. But turning the Faith into a mere feeder system to steer people into being good little Movement Conservatives is just another kind of idolatry–and arguably a more culpable sin.

The terrifying visage gazing back at you right now is a non-bearded version of Mark P. Shea: a popular Catholic writer and speaker who appears in this form from about May to November. He is a double-jump convert: raised more or less as an agnostic pagan, became a non-denominational Evangelical in 1979, and entered the Catholic Church in 1987.

When he is not shaving, he is the author of the books:

• Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did
• By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition, and;
• This is My Body: An Evangelical Discovers the Real Presence

He also shows up on TV now and then to frighten small children and puppies and prove to the world that he has a Radio Face. Obligingly, he also turns up frequently on radio.

In addition, Mark is busy bopping around the country (and occasionally other countries) speaking on lots of fun and interesting topics. If you want him to speak at your parish, conference, or soiree, check out his Speaking Information.

He also finds time to be Senior Content Editor at Catholic Exchange, a non-profit web portal for Catholics. In addition, Mark is an affiliate and devoted friend of the Catherine of Siena Institute and boosts their phenomenally important work wherever and whenever he can. Further, he is an awarding-winning columnist, contributing “Heaven and Earth” to the late lamented New Covenant and “The Culture of Life” to Catholic Parent, as well as numerous articles to many other magazines. He has been happily married since 1983 and he and his wife have frequent adventures with their four sons.

Oh, and from about November to May, he just gives up on shaving, stays warm, and looks like this (except that he’s still in color):

POSTED BY MARK P. SHEA AT 6:33 AM

LABELS: EVIL STUPID PARTY, SALVATION THROUGH LEVIATHAN BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

Newer PostOlder PostHome

Subscribe to: Comment Feed (RSS)

Forced Abortion and Sterilization Program For U.S.A.?

Nazi Germany had a policy of forced abortion and sterilization for designated groups as a matter of national policy. One newly confirmed United States cabinet member has advocated a similar approach for population control.                                       Fr. Orthohippo

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Although President Obama’s choice for science czar received unanimous approval from the US Senate in March, little mention has been made of Harvard professor John Holdren’s career as a self-avowed “neo-Malthusian.” In that capacity Holdren has advocated compulsory population control in America, including forced abortion and the addition of sterilizing agents to drinking water, and the creation of what he literally called a “Planetary Regime” that would enforce such a program worldwide.

President-elect Barack Obama stated in December that he had nominated Holdren as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) as part of his Administration’s mission to promote an unbiased science. The goal, said Obama, was to protect “free and open inquiry” and “ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.”

“It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient,” announced Obama.

As “Science Czar,” Holdren holds the position of the President’s assistant for Science and Technology, Director of OSTP, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Holdren has accrued an impressive list of credentials to his name: a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a former Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, winner of the Volvo Environment Prize of 1993 (along with population control advocate Paul Ehrlich), and others.

However nothing better reveals the scientific and global policy views of Obama’s Science Advisor than his writings on environmental issues, which help provide a picture of the man at the helm of the President’s most inner circle of scientific advisors.

Earlier in February, FrontPage magazine had first revealed that Holdren had proposed a number of dispassionate prescriptions for a ruthless population control program that could be applied to the United States in a 1977 published book entitled, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.” Holdren co-authored the work with population control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich with the central premise that governments may curtail individual human rights “where society has a ‘compelling, subordinating interest’ in regulating population size.”

Examples put forward by the authors include the possibility of forced abortion to meet population quotas, sterilizing populations through intentionally tainting the water-supply with infertility drugs, mandating unwed and teen mothers to chose between abortion or giving their children up for adoption, and the imposition of a “Planetary Regime” to enforce policies of population control, with one enforcement mechanism being a global transnational police force.

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society,” wrote Holdren on page 837.

Holdren defends that assertion on the next page by stating that “neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce” and that for the survival of society, a government could both coerce women to have children as well as force them to abort.

Large families are a particular target of Holdren and the Ehrlichs, who write that parents of such families “contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children” and “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.”

Holdren advances several ideas for coercive fertility control. He states (pp. 786-7) that “sterilizing women after their second or third child” may be more practicable than sterilizing men, proposes a “long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin” at puberty and then “might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control,” says Holdren.

“Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Holdren proposes on pages 942-3, an ultimate enforcement mechanism in the form of “a Planetary Regime – sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment” that would control and distribute all natural resources and determine as well the “optimum population for the world.”

“Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits,” Holdren states. Earlier Holdren had mentioned the creation of “an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force” (p. 917) as one method of achieving international security.

Read quotations and excerpts from “Ecoscience” with photographs and scans of original text via blogger ZombieTime here

WHAT IS AN AVERAGE CHURCH?

Ever hear someone say their church is an average church?  What to they mean? You probably have heard several different definitions. The odd thing is that those definitions may all be correct.  Fr. Ernesto caught a blog on iMonk which is as good an explanation as I’ve heard of how people define “averages”. They say statistics lie.  An post  comment on iMonk told this-  Bill Gates attends a meeting with the men in a homeless shelter. The average income of all the men present means they are all millionaires.This post helps keep that from happening as to church sizes.   Fr. Orthohippo

July 13th, 2009 by iMonk

Welcome back IM First Officer Michael Bell as the guest blogger today.

via Michael Bell: What Is An “Average Church?” | internetmonk.com.

Michael Bell: What Is An “Average Church?”

July 13th, 2009 by iMonk

You may have heard people say that the “average” sized church in the U.S. or Canada is about 75 people. You also may have heard someone say that the “average” sized church in North America is about 185 people. Who is right? It all depends how you define “average”. . .

Imagine you are looking down a very, very long street, and all the churches of U.S. are lined up along the left side of the street from smallest to largest. In behind each church are all their Sunday morning attenders.

If you counted the grand total of everyone standing behind each church and then divided this number by the total number of churches that you see on this very long street, you would come up with a “mean” or “average” size of 184. “Mean” is usually what we mean of when we think of “average”. But this number of 184 is a very misleading number.

Lets say you start walking down the street, passing the churches with 5 people on a Sunday morning, 10 people, 15 people, 20 people. You continue walking until you have passed half of all the churches in America. Half of the churches in the U.S. are now behind you, half are still in front. The “average” church that you are standing in front of is called the “median” church. You look to see how many people are lined up behind it, and you see 75 people. That is right, half the churches in the United States have less than 75 people.

The average or “mean” church at 184 is 2.45 times the size of the average median church at 75. Why is this so? If you continue walking, you will get a better understanding of how skewed church numbers are within the United States.

So, you continue walking, past the churches of 80, 90, 100, 110. Youwalk until you have passed 90% of all the churches. You look to your left and you see 350 people lined up behind this church. Much to your surprise, although you have passed 90% of all the churches, over half of the churchgoers are still in front of you! This is why the “mean” is so much higher than the “median”. While most of the churches in the United States are small, most of the attenders go to large churches. . .

You can read the entire post on iMonk via my blogroll.