Saturday, November 25, 2006
The Washington Post reports:
As much of Washington started to shut down for the Thanksgiving holiday yesterday afternoon, Brian O'Neill Jr., a Georgetown University undergrad and founder of the Apostles of Peace and Unity, sat outside the office of the city zoning administrator, angry.
His sentences were short, his tone frustrated. His faith, the college junior said, was being challenged, and he didn't like it.
"I don't know what we're going to do right now," he said.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Yesterday, when many MOJ contributors and readers were occupied with preparing for the Thanksgiving Day feast, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI met at the Apostolic Prayer (whether crumpets or cornetti were served was not disclosed). Both the Pope and the Archbishop presented their respective addresses [HERE]. Afterwards they issued a Common Declaration [HERE].
The three texts all discuss matters such as dialogue, friendship, and ecumenism. However, I found the Pope’s published address to be a revealing text. Twice he mentioned the search and work for “full visible unity” between the Anglican Communion and Rome. This is an important statement free from general platitude and the ambiguities that often accompany diplomatic exchanges. The Pope acknowledged that obstacles continue to “keep us apart.” And what might those obstacles be? The Pope was not reticent in providing insight.
After noting the existence and effect of negative influences and pressures that the “secularized Western world” have on Christians as individuals and as communities, the Pope identified two major problems that fortify the separation without saying they are the only ones. The two specified are: (1) the ordained ministry; and (2) certain moral teachings. It could well be that within this second concern lies another line of questions pertaining to what are the beliefs held by the Anglican Communion? The fault lines of the present day found within the Anglican Communion indicate the plausibility of these questions. The Pope lamented that these vital topics he mentioned not only affect the relations between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church, but they also make uncertain the future of the Anglican Communion itself. For the Pope, these two issues are of vital importance to the continuing discussions between the Apostolic Palace and the Lambeth Palace. In this context, the Pope concluded on a prayerful and hopeful note that the Anglican Community will remain grounded in the Gospels and the Apostolic Tradition of the common patrimony essential to the “full visible unity” of which the Pope spoke.
If this were Wimbleton, the Holy Father was successful in keeping the ball in the other’s court. But keeping score really was not Benedict’s purpose. His objective was to send his welcome guest back home with a list of important questions that must be addressed by the Anglican Communion so that when the guest returns he will not only find an open door but also an expectation of presenting answers to the previously posed questions—answers that are essential to determining whether “full visible unity” is possible. RJA sj
Thursday, November 23, 2006
"It being the indispensable duty of all nations, not only to offer up their supplications to Almighty God, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his Providence in their behalf; therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged…do hereby recommend it to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of Thursday, the twenty-eighth day of November next, as a day of solemn thanksgiving to God for all his mercies; and they do further recommend to all ranks and testify their gratitude of God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by protecting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness."
Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of October 11, 1782, 23:647. The Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789, ed. Worthington C. Ford, Gaillard Hunt, et. al., (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904-1937.
Taken from a Michael Novak lecture.
Have a happy and blessed Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
I dunno, Greg. I was stuck behind a conservative the other day. He was driving a giant Cadillac, going 25 in a 45 MPH zone, and taking up two lanes, impeding everyone else's progress. His (right) rear turn signal kept blinking even though he never deviated from his path. He was deaf to the desperate honking of everyone behind him, and I was choking on his exhaust fumes -- or maybe it was the sight of his Bush-Cheney sticker!
-- Mark
Combining our exchange about the charitable giving patterns of conservatives and liberals with the posting on the Pope's appeal for road-safety during the holidays, Mark Sargent asks (tongue in cheek) "who are better drivers, liberals or conservatives?"
With tongue even more firmly planted in cheek, I must say I am surprised that Mark needs to ask, as it obviously would be conservatives, who are more capable of perceiving the realities of the world and thus have the clear and unobstructed eyesight necessary to see the road and the obstacles ahead.
Moreover, given the tendency of liberal economic, tax, education, and welfare policies to drive the economy, public education, and the culture into the ditch, we must be wary of trusting liberals behind the wheel.
Greg Sisk
Rowan Williams has just given us a profound, inspiring, beautiful meditation on the Benedictine contribution to our past and, perhaps, to our future. The Archbishop's insights into the saint's understanding of obedience, and what it might mean for us in political society, are especially rich. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/061121.htm
In a post a couple of weeks ago, I noted that New York City is going to allow individuals to change the gender designation on their birth certificates and quoted Joann Prinzivalli of the New York Transgender Rights Organization, who hailed the "move away from American culture’s misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one’s gender identity," a fixation that is "based on an arbitrary distinction that says there are two and only two sexes." By email, Ms. Prinzivalli has offered a lengthy response to my post. Here is an excerpt: When I refer to sex assignment at birth, I refer to the common practice of using genital shape as the guideline - and for over 99% of babies, this works as an accurate assignment. For the visibly intersexed (those having genital ambiguity), the sociocultural imperative drives doctors to perform genital mutilation to make them conform to one or the other of the official assignments. For those who are not visibly intersexed, such as transsexuals, who have some brain structures that develop in a way that closely matches the development in persons of the sex opposite their initial assignment, that initial assignment is incorrect. Additionally, some who are intersexed do not identify with either of the binary assignments. Our society insists that there are two and only two sexes, and while that is true for the large majority, there is a small minority for whom there is a diversity - and that is not merely in gender identity, but in sex assignment as well. I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to your blog with these comments, as well as the following more theological exegesis, which was my homily for the service at last year's International Transgender Day of Remembrance. Looking at your rather impressive list of professional writings, I would think you might find my disagreement with the Magisterium somewhat interesting. I is entirely too bad that the Vatican relied on he terribly warped views of Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins for the "science" behind its sub secretum Y2K document on transsexuals in the Church. . . . . What the Pope and the Christianists refuse to understand, is that the punishment of Sodom was meted out to those who do not accept strangers, and who hate people be-cause they are different. The real "sodomites" are the people who have a rabid hatred of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, because we are different, because we are strangers, because we are eunuchs. But God loves us. There is a further message in the Gospel for those who preach bigotry and hate, and who want to deny human dignity and fair treatment to those of us who are different because we are LGBT. The message of Mathew Chapter 25:31-46 is a warning to the intolerant. When the time comes for Judgment, they will be found wanting. Whatsoever they have done to the least of God’s children, they do to God. Those who insult and hate us, and shoot us in the back of the head, or bludgeon and stab us until we are unrecognizable and dump our bodies in a shallow grave, are not the only ones who will number among the goats. Those whose intolerance in the name of Christ leads them to deny to the members of the LGBT community basic human rights and dignity will fare just as poorly on the Day of Judgment. Like the men of Sodom, their inhospitable and suspicious bigotry is an affront to God as well as to those who are the victims of their persecution. These same Christianists, the real sodomites, also often wrap themselves up in the flag and claim that their concept of Christianity is also patriotic and American. The nation that supposedly guarantees its inhabitants the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, has a history of treating people with injustice. The treatment of slaves, of women, and of LGBT people, has all the same earmarks. You will know them by their works. My prayer for them is this: May God forgive them, if they know not what they do. But they do know what they do, and they believe they are justified, and that is so much sadder, because they are more likely to die unrepentant. And so I pray for them, that they may become open to the knowledge and understanding they need, the strength and courage to change their ways and see the truth, and, inspired by Holy Wisdom, that they no longer be so hard of heart, and that they know peace and love.
Apropos our recent discussion about comparative charitable giving and the Pope's recent statement on Thanksgiving accidents (cited by Rick below), I have to ask: who are better drivers, liberals or conservatives?
-- Mark
Benedict XVI Urges Prudence on Highways
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 19, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI appealed for respect of road-safety norms on the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims.
After praying the midday Angelus with the crowds gathered in St. Peter's Square today, the Pope recited in French a prayer to the Lord to receive "in his peace all the persons who died in traffic accidents."
Remembering that the injured often suffer long-lasting problems, the Holy Father appealed "emphatically to automobile drivers to respect traffic norms vigilantly and to pay ever more attention to others."
Traffic accidents are one of the main causes of deaths in the world. In a 2005 report, the World Health Organization (WHO) revealed that these accidents, especially frequent in urban areas of developing countries, cause 1.2 million deaths a year, or 3,000 a day. Tens of millions of people are injured.
WHO estimated that, at current trends, by the year 2020 victims of traffic accidents will exceed those of AIDS.
Books & Culture has an interesting profile of Polish human rights activist Adam Michnik and his respect for the political thought of Pope Benedict and resistance to Catholic fundamentalism in his home country:
"We are witnessing an alliance between a significant part of the clergy and those forces the democrat-skeptic calls 'the new populism.' The rhetoric of the new populists is Manichaean. They claim to be serving the absolute good rooted in the Church's teachings and fighting the absolute evil present in the theories and practices of their adversaries. They intoxicate themselves with the cult of their own sinlessness, narcotizing the public opinion with campaigns against ever new threats, with attacks on ever new scapegoats, with ever new witch-hunts."
"They often declare their ardent anti-communism, and yet they are genuine children of the communist mentality, with its obsessive suspiciousness and its contempt for truth and the law. There lives in the 'new populists' the spirit of homo sovieticus, with its primitive egalitarianism, its collectivistic aversion toward the heretics, its belief that the state should regulate all mechanisms of social life and that the state's will is the source of morality and truth about the world. This becomes particularly powerful when the state—that is, the ruling élite—refers to the Chruch's teachings, and the Church consents to that."
Rob
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
