CANA claims opponents use "vulgar tactics"

A press release from CANA Central:

ALERT: Scam Defaming CANA

Please be aware that some who oppose CANA are apparently resorting to rather vulgar tactics. Earlier this week Bishop Bena was contacted by a landlord in Minnesota who informed us that he had received a query from a supposedly potential tenant who claimed to be from a St Lukes in Southampton England and who claimed that he was coming to the States in order to work for Bishop Minns, Bishop Bena, and CANA for about two years. The tenant further told the landlord that they were going to send a large check in excess of the rent with the request that the landlord cash it and buy furniture for the foreign tenant who would not be able to bring furnishings with them from England. Later this week another landlord from Florida called the CANA Headquarters with the same scenario.

This is a hoax by those who oppose CANA. [...]

My emphasis.

What you have here in all likelihood is a scam by experienced scam artists whose only agenda is making money the easy way. In this age of email spam we've all seen jillions of scams not unlikely these. All they're looking for is a sucker who will fall for the pitch.

I believe CANA is the one resorting to "vulgar tactics" by using the scam to suggest that it must be perpetrated by opponents of CANA. (Either that, or paranoia strikes deep in the heart of CANA.) Which opponents?

CANA should put out an alert about the scam; it hurts its own credibility by using the public service announcement - in the opening sentence, no less - to turn it into a self-serving statement.

Again. Which opponents? CANA is the defamer. CANA is the hoaxer.

CANA congregations continue to look to Episcopal bishops

The funny thing about CANA congregations is that they continue to look to Episcopal dioceses for support -- such as programming and advice of teaching Sunday School, etc. This shouldn't really be surprising. Churches are comprised of people, and old habits and networks don't just die when a group of dissidents leaves the Episcopal Church for CANA. But does reaching out for support also apply to deployment?

Here's a report that is uncorroborated at this point -- it's in the category of rumor rather than news. Mad Priest passes along the story,

There is a parish in the far reaches of our diocese that decided to affiliate with Peter Akinola and the Nigerians. They are now looking for a new rector.

A woman from the search committee contacted the bishop of this diocese and asked him to send an interim rector.

The bishop of this diocese told her he could not do so and that they would have to ask Akinola to send them an interim rector.

The lovely little lady then said they didn't want to do that because they are afraid Akinola will send them a black person.

While I give the bishop credit for this, I cannot forget that he is also very much in favor of discrimination against GLBT Episcopalians in this diocese. He considers himself a "Windsor Bishop," but unlike most of the "Windsor Bishops," he has read the part about avoiding schism.

Here's one list of Windsor Bishops. Here's a list of CANA congregations. I don't know any that are currently searching for a rector.

Anne Lamott and Stephen, two Sunday school teachers, talk about faith.

A must see.

Denominational Division

Is there division in the Episcopal Church? Of course.

But how do you write a headline when a parish votes to leave the denomination, and the denomination's constitution says that people can leave but parishes can't? "Parish departs" doesn't capture it. The locution "allegedly departed parish" does.

And what do you put in the headline when a denomination votes to secede, but the denomination says according to its constitution only it decides on divisions?

The Diocese of San Joaquin has voted to leave. But the diocese is still there. It is still there in at least two senses. First, because there has not been a division from the constitutional perspective there is still an Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. It is merely awaiting the appointment of an acting bishop. Second, if the diocese has left who are those people occupying diocesan property and the church property held in trust by the diocese? Shouldn't they be packing their bags?

Yes, I am. No, you're not.

I remember the arguments we had as children. "Yes, I am." "No, you're not." Ad infinitum. Maybe it was about whether you were in the top reading group in 4th grade. May be it was about whether you lived in the right neighborhood. What ever.

As a child it was very frustrating to "know" you were right, but to be told confidently by the other (with a smirk perhaps) that you were not. You wanted them to admit they were wrong, that they were only pretending in order to get your goat.

That's the way it is in the Anglican Communion these days. Who is in the Anglican Communion? Some people say they are even though their bishop is not invited to Lambeth. Or they are in the United States but not members of the Episcopal Church. Some people might decide I'm an apostate and say I'm not an Anglican for that reason.

No one can deny anyone their fantasy, or pretended fantasy that they are members of the Anglican Communion. It's not as if we have to swear allegiance the Archbishop of Canterbury or something. Maybe that's a good thing, I don't know.

But what it means is that there's no need for anyone to set up an alternative worldwide Anglican Communion. There's no point. We can all believe there's a man behind the walls of Lambeth who agrees with us. Or even if he comes out and says no he disapproves of you or me, we can ignore him. Whether you're in the Anglican Communion is all in your mind. And when that's so no one can exclude anyone from membership.

There's a new sheriff in town

And some of the boys in purple don't like it.

Check out the photo of the sheriff.

Source of the quotation, "there's a new sheriff in town."

Vatican advocates unequal pay...

...for unequal work.

The Times has the story

The Vatican will offer a three-tier “level of merit” bonus system, with the top bonus being 10 per cent of salary. “Meritocracy has breached the Vatican walls,” Il Messaggero, the Rome daily newspaper, said. The deal, to take effect in January, was negotiated with the Vatican’s association of employees, the ADLV, the closest organisation to a trade union in the Holy See. There are also about 1,000 clergy and nuns in Vatican City – one of the world’s smallest sovereign states. It is not clear how their “productivity” is to be measured, but this should prove rather easier with the administrators, secretaries, gardeners and mechanics, and the staff of the Vatican Museums, the Vatican Bank and Vatican Radio and Television.

According to The Times, 'When he was once asked how many people worked in the Vatican, Pope John XXIII (1958-63) is said to have replied: “About half, I think.”'

Who is most likely to beat Krugman in a debate?

Krugman 2007:

Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a “crisis” in Social Security — most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.

But Mr. Obama’s Social Security mistake was, in fact, exactly what you’d expect from a candidate who promises to transcend partisanship in an age when that’s neither possible nor desirable.

Krugman 1996:

Where is the crisis? Just over the horizon, that's where. . . . Responsible adults are supposed to plan more than seven years ahead. Yet if you think even briefly about what the Federal budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately realize that we are drifting inexorably toward crisis; if you think 30 years ahead, you wonder whether the Republic can be saved.

It's all explicated here in the Washington Post.

Don't get played for a sucker by Krugman. Not to criticize liberals in general, but beware someone who titles his blog Conscience of a Liberal. Well, at least he told us it's not possible to transcend partisanship. 1996. Let's see, what was the context of his remarks at that time?

Lesson learned: Apply a heavy discount to anything the man says.

Our Rowan he sent Howe a letter

By now you've probably seen or know where to find a copy of the email letter the Archbishop of Canterbury sent to Bishop Howe who heads up the Diocese of Central Florida. But I'm going to post it here with my comments interspersed. The ABC's letter is in italics.

14 October 2007

Dear John

I've just received your message, which weighs very heavily on my heart, as it must - though far more so - on yours.

Heavy hearted because a substantial number of churches in the diocese are contemplating leaving the diocese.

At this stage, I can say only two things. The first is that I have committed myself very clearly to awaiting the views of the Primates before making any statement purporting to settle the question of The Episcopal Church's status, and I can't easily short-circuit that procedure. The second is that your Rectors need to recognize that this process is currently in train and that a separatist decision from them at this point would be irresponsible and potentially confusing.

He's referring here to the recently concluded House of Bishops statement and the process he's set in place to review whether that response is adequate. The process to my understanding is not fully articulated but the next signpost in view is for the primate responses (and other ACC member responses) due late this month. I would be surprised if he saying that a decision is imminent or that he's concluded even who exactly has the authority to make such a decision.

However, without forestalling what the Primates might say, I would repeat what I've said several times before - that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.

To paraphrase: "I'm saying nothing new. If your diocese is Windsor Compliant you are Anglican regardless of the fate of The Episcopal Church." I had not realized that this was the status quo under which we were operating. You'd certainly not get that impression from Bob Duncan, or from Martyn Minns. Why does one need to go seek another harbor if the ABC himself is giving you safe harbor (the Diocese of Virginia is Windsor Compliant, no?)?

This status quo, though, undermines the ability of a national church to cohere. What incentive do dioceses have to stay in dialog with each other, to listen to each other,to be mutually forebearing towards each other - to pay their dues - if they can opt out of the national church and still be Anglican? Is that what is implied?

Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor. Action that fragments their Dioceses will not help the consolidation of that all-important critical mass of ordinary faithful Anglicans in The Episcopal Church for whose nurture I am so much concerned. Breaking this up in favour of taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions complicates and embitters the future for this vision.

A criticism of those rectors cum churches who leave their dioceses. A criticism, too, of Common Cause bishops who have one foot out the door with their dioceses. And a criticism of foreign Primates offering harbor. (Notice: They're not Windsor Compliant. Hmmm.)

Do feel free to pass on these observations to your priests.

Translation: "I'm about to wrap this up. And I should say something tender. Oh, but here's another thought as I'm getting in touch with my feeling side...."

I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the 'national church'. I think that if more thought in these terms there might be more understanding of why priests in a diocese such as yours ought to maintain their loyalty to their sacramental communion with you as Bishop.

He's reiterating his core point about ecclesial identity. But then he throws in the phrase "abstract reality of the 'national church'." There's been much buzzing on the web about what that means. As in, isn't the Anglican Communion a communion of national provinces? Perhaps he means 'national church' isn't Biblical; nor of course then is the Church of England. Nor is the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the Pope. Nor the Primates! Or is he saying something specific about the organizational design of The Episcopal Church? My guess is, no. But it's only a guess.

But at the emotional level I can understand something of the frustration they doubtless experience, just as you must.

With continuing prayers and love,

+Rowan

Ok, I'm done. Stick a fork in it.