Presbyterians, Methodists, and the Episcopal Church Attack Catholic Religious Liberty ( Birth Control Mandate )

We are seeing a little bit of sad American religious history being played out and it's the saddest part of this Obama Birth Control Mandate.

For the first time in our lives we are seeing the three Giants of the Mainline Protestant Church attack Catholic Religious Liberty. There is an attempt to go under the radar with this ,but it is happening. It remains to be seen if the Bishops have let me say the "Stones" to call this out.

I pointed out last night United Methodist Church Abandons The Catholic Church ( Obama Birth Control Mandate ) ( Update) . We can add the the Episcopal Church USA and the largest Presbyterian body to that list. See Reformed Pastor 's blog for details and links at On Your Knees, Pro-Lifers (UPDATED)

Let us be clear about the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice on a few things. It has on it's web site

Coalition membership does not require or imply conformity to all the actions and initiatives of the Coalition. Each denomination and group is free to express its own opinions and beliefs on any topic. However, the member groups appreciate and support the value of working together for shared values of justice, tolerance, and religious freedom.

However as noted by the member list the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist, and Presbyterian Church (USA) are the main Christian members. In fact no doubt they make up the main members itself as to numbers. I find it hard to believe that any policy stance or lobbying would be done on a issue of this importance without the consent of these three bodies. At least the United Methodist had the guts to put it on their web site as my prior posts shows.

The Episcopal Church not so much as I can tell. As we see here the Episcopal Church USA had an opportunity to speak out against their "lobby Group" when they were in Executive session. See from MCJ post - COMPARE AND CONTRAST . That speaks volumes.

Also lets note the "independent" Episcopal Cafe. Despite the fact that religious groups are taking stands on this issue left and right there is not a mention of even the issue. See for yourself here and go through the archives. Also unless I have missed it nothing at the Episcopal Church website.

Do they think people are that dumb. Maybe they are right. The media has not caught on.

What is also incredible as pointed out here there is displeasure it appears the Obama Birth Control mandate DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH. That is into the "4 walls " of the Church itself.

So we have these Churches actively lobby for a Law that is aimed toward Catholics that restrict our religious liberty. This is at least in my life time unprecedented.

From Pope Benedict down it's quite clear the Catholic Church is concerned about a law that in their view makes us cooperate with a evil. In fact many Catholic Institutions might close down. It's sad that the three respected bodies of the Protestant mainline don't care. It is also very frightening .

- Update- One thing should be affirmed. These bosies can give whatever services in the Instituions they want too. However these bodies are in support of GOVT force to make us do that. At some point Protestants cared about Religious liberty. Thankfully from what we have seen most do. But's the 3 main ships of the mainline do not. At least the Lutherans appear concerned

Three Cheers For Catholic Guilt

Barefoot and Pregnant has a post that was written a couple of weeks ago that has been discovered by many yesterday. Great essay at Catholic Guilt

On another note I am now going to read Brideshead Revisited which I somehow missed reading in school

Fourth Largest Presbyterian Church Leaves Presbyterian Church (USA) ( Orlando )

See First Presbyterian votes to leave denomination from the Orlando paper.

This seems like rather big news that was quite under covered :

Members of First Presbyterian Church of Orlando voted overwhelmingly Sunday to break away from the Presbyterian Church (USA) to join the conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).
The 1,759 to 185 vote exceeded the two-thirds majority needed to seek dismissal from the PC (USA). The 3,600-member First Presbyterian is the largest Presbyterian church in Florida and fourth largest in the nation.
"Change is never easy," said Senior Pastor David Swanson, "but I believe our congregation has prayerfully discerned God's leading for us, and I cannot wait to see what God has in store for First Presbyterian Church as she embarks on this new phase of ministry and service for his sake."
First Presbyterian has been losing membership in recent years and blamed some of that on PC (USA) doctrines that permitted the ordination of gay deacons, elders and clergy. Some also blamed the decline on doctrines that quest questioned the Bible as the literal word of God and Jesus Christ as the only salvation..................

What is striking is that have lopsided that vote was in the end

United Methodist Church Abandons The Catholic Church ( Obama Birth Control Mandate ) ( Update)

Well this is just sad. I was wondering what Churches and Faith communities had still not made a statement on the Obama Birth Control Mandate.

I was under the impression the United Methodist had not. Sadly it appears their leadership has.

In this age of Ecumenical outreach , I certainly hope the religious liberty concerns that the Catholic Bishops had were discussed. Were they? Were we consulted? Maybe no one will bother to find out.

I take some comfort that I suspect a good many Bishops, Pastors, and Methodist Lay folk might think at the very least this full fledged endorsement was done with a tad bit of less haste.

Update- Appears the Women’s Division of the United Methodist Church does not think this goes FAR ENOUGH.

How Religious and Secular Folks Should Talk To Each Other ( Obama and the Atheist )

Warning long post!!

President Obama had his prayer breakfast remarks today. Heck I am GOP guy , but I give it an
A -.

It strikes me as one President's Obama more overtly Christian speeches of his Presidency even for the Prayer breakfast.

One part struck me:

Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical. It is God who is infallible, not us. Michelle reminds me of this often. (Laughter.) .

A North Louisiana blogger the weary blues today had a post from another Obama Speech. linked here . Let me quote his excerpt ( The bolding is mine) :


Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

Now I actually agree with a great part of that. However I think it only tells half the picture. The other half is what is the obligation of non believers. I think this incomplete picture plays out all the time in our discussion.

Now Obama to his credit in that speech in 2006 at least implied this was a somewhat two way street:

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

Obama I think gets almost there when looking at this speech as a whole. Though I still think the specifics of the obligations of one party is a tad weighted to one side and indeed incomplete.

Which brings me to the European atheist Jurgen Habermas. Sadly this paper was on a blog that appears to has gone bye bye but the cache remains . See Jurgen Habermas: A Secular Atheist Changes His Mind on Religion in the Public Sphere by Aimee Milburn Cooper, M.A. Th.

Catholics in the Pope Benedict / Ratzinger weeds will know there is a connection between these two men.

I recommend the whole paper but I wanted to post this part:

...Just a few months ago, the European Journal of Philosophy in its Spring 2006 edition featured as its lead article a chapter from Habermas’ newest book, Between Naturalism and Religion (not yet released), entitled “Religion in the Public Sphere,”[9] which summarizes much of his current thought on the subject.

EJP subsequently offered the article free on the Internet, and in doing research for this paper, I found it being featured for download across a spectrum of US academic, philosophy, and law websites, and being discussed widely in related blogospheres.

What is most startling about the article, especially in light of the reading we’ve been doing in class, is Habermas’ simultaneous assertion of the need for and right of religious discourse in the public sphere, and his criticism of the insufficient use of reason in the public sphere by the secular realm because of its refusal to grant validity to the religious perspective.

Habermas’ thought is an unexpected ally from outside the Church in the project of rebuilding the civilization of love and restoring religious rights to the public sphere, and is worth summarizing here. I use the “Religion in the Public Sphere” article as source, and outline five principle points from the article in the following.

Habermas on Religion in the Public Sphere


First, Habermas has become concerned that the suppression of religion in the public sphere has created an unacceptable inequality between citizens of the state:

The liberal state must not transform the requisite institutional separation of the religion and politics into an undue mental and psychological burden for those of its citizens who follow a faith. . . . [Citizens should not have to] split their identity into a public and private part the moment they participate in public discourses. They should therefore be allowed to express and justify their convictions in a religious language if they cannot find secular ‘translations’ for them.[10]

Though it is questionable that religious speech should be “allowed,” as opposed to recognized as a basic right, I appreciate that he recognizes the burden and seeks to rectify it.

Second, he reasons that religious citizens have a burden, as far as possible, of “translating” religious reasoning into terms their secular counterparts can understand, to facilitate communication; and the freedom, if they can’t “translate,” to speak freely and publicly in religious terms. He also reasons that secular citizens have in turn the responsibility to listen for possible “truth” in religious arguments:

This requirement of translation must be conceived as a cooperative task in which the non-religious citizens must likewise participate, if their religious fellow citizens are not to be encumbered with an asymmetrical burden. . . . Secular citizens must open their minds to the possible truth content of those presentations and enter dialogues from which religious reasons then might well emerge in the transformed guise of generally accessible arguments.[11]

Note that Habermas, the secular atheist, is acknowledging that religious reasoning may contain “possible truth” that secularity should be open to. This is a far cry from the view of religion as oppressive “superstition” in the original Enlightenment view.

Third, Habermas observes that particular worldviews and religious doctrines are inherent to the formation of the person and cannot simply be laid aside in the public square, but must be taken into account in any public discourse. The expectation that they be laid aside, which he identifies as dominant since the Reformation and Enlightenment, places undue burdens on religious citizens and creates “cognitive dissonances” that, if they penetrate deeply enough into the fabric of the community, can cause its disintegration into irreconcilable segments:

In the absence of the uniting body of a civic solidarity . . . citizens do not perceive themselves as free and equal participants in the shared practices of democratic opinion and will formation wherein they owe one another reasons [emphasis Habermas’] for their political statements and attitudes. This reciprocity of expectations among citizens is what distinguishes a community integrated by constitutional values from a community segmented along the dividing lines of competing world views.[12]

His view is based on the concept of the person as having both freedom and inherent dignity, which in the public sphere manifests as both the right to speak freely and be heard, and the duty to listen to and carefully consider the freely expressed views of other persons. He speaks of the danger to pluralistic civil society when “in the case of conflicts that cut deep, citizens need not adapt to or face one another as second persons” (emphasis Habermas’).[13]

He has developed this idea elsewhere in his theory of “communicative action.”[14] This theory is consistent with recent Catholic teaching on the person and society, beginning with the documents of Vatican II and expressed most recently in speeches and statements of Pope Benedict XVI, such as the Regensburg address,[15] which call for respectful, rational dialogue between persons and societies of differing religious and philosophical views.

Fourth, Habermas has come to believe that modern Liberalism is “intrinsically self-contradictory” because it represses and devalues the free speech of religious citizens, and demands of them “an effort to learn and adapt that secular citizens are spared having to make.”[16] He is highly critical of this prevailing secular prejudice against religion:

As long as secular citizens are convinced that religious traditions and religious communities are . . . archaic relics of pre-modern societies that continue to exist in the present, they will understand freedom of religion as the cultural version of the conservation of a species in danger of becoming extinct. From their viewpoint, religion no longer has any intrinsic justification to exist. . . . [Secular citizens] can obviously [not] be expected to take religious contributions to contentious political issues seriously and even to help to assess them for a substance that can possibly be expressed in a secular language and justified by secular arguments.

. . . The admission of religious statements to the political public sphere only makes sense if all citizens can be expected not to deny from the outset any possible cognitive substance to these contributions. . . . [Yet] such an attitude presupposes a mentality that is anything but a matter of course in the secularized societies of the West.[17]

Fifth and last, he criticizes the way that reason itself is used in secular culture, calling it inadequate and a danger. He calls for a “self-critical assessment of the limits of secular reason;”[18] the “overcoming of . . . a narrow secularist consciousness”;[19] and asks “secular citizens . . . [to be] prepared to learn something from the contributions to public debates made by their religious counterparts.”[20] He states “the ethics of democratic citizenship assumes secular citizens exhibit a mentality that is no less demanding than the corresponding mentality of their religious counterparts,”[21] and so calls citizens to a much higher standard of reasoning:

The polarization of the world views in a community that splits into fundamentalist and secular camps [shows] that an insufficient number of citizens matches up to the yardstick of the public use of reason and thereby endanger political integration.[22]

In sum, Habermas is proposing no less than a “revised concept of citizenship”[23] that simultaneously restores freedom of religious speech and reasoning to the public square and elevates the level of secular reasoning, with an equal duty of respect, listening, and reciprocity expected of all citizens. This is stunning in light of classical Enlightenment and Liberal thought on religion – and very hopeful, coming from such a prominent and respected secular atheist.

Amen to that. I think this where perhaps Obama was trying to go in that speech with the added touch of explaining more explicitly secular folks duties.

If either side has the ability to this in American society is an open question.

National Catholic Reporter Columnist's Hit Piece on Knights of Columbus ( A Response )

It really takes a lot to get me mad but this piece by Nicole Sotelo at the National Catholic Reporter has me livid. See Some Knights of Columbus donations are a little bit questionable .

From her bio is the author of Women Healing from Abuse: Meditations for Finding Peace, published by Paulist Press, and coordinates http://www.womenhealing.com/. A graduate of Harvard Divinity School, she currently works at Call To Action.

Where to start. I realize that most at the National Catholic Reporter may not think about the concept of Subsidiarity very much ,but not every bit of money the Knights raise is sent to the big ole National Organization. A good bit is spent locally.

Further the article is a hit piece because it's misleading. It portrays the Knights just spending money on "Questionable Political activities " Thus in the main article the Knights are portrayed as misers that contributed $5,000 to disaster relief in Indiana and $3,000 to the community soup kitchen in New Haven, Conn. A small amount compared to the supposed "questionable" expenditures of funds elsewhere.

Thankfully she at least links the Financial reports ( but its likely a vast majority will not hit those links) From the 2011 report alone we see:

Global Wheelchair Mission, Camarillo, Calif. $ 250,000
Disaster Relief — Haiti, earthquake $1,233,055
National Catholic Office for the Deaf $30,000
Knights of Columbus Food for Families Program $1,000,267
National Catholic Partnership on Disability $100,000
United Way — Corporate gift $140,000
Coats for Kids Program $243,625
Rome Youth Centers (Italian Welfare Fund) 1,711,935

There is more go look at it.

Now to the meat of her report. She seems upset because basically the Knights are pretty "Orthodox" I mean look at this silly line

Additionally, in 2009 and 2010, Knights officials contributed $200,000 as noted in annual reports to Vox Clara, the bishops' committee responsible for turning back the clock on the liturgy and implementing the recent controversial language changes in the Mass. They have been a significant funder of the committee since 2006.

Wow just wow. Knight thinking about Liturgy and supporting their Bishops. HORRIFIC

She also does not like the controversial "Beckett Fund" and all those Lawyers. The Beckett Fund is a huge player in making sure Religious Civil Liberty is protected. That is for Christians and non Christians. It might shock the writer but they have been active in fighting overboard anti Sharia laws and fighting for Muslims against local communities who protest Mosque building. But no doubt she thinks these are just some wacko far Righters. The Knights funding groups that protect even non Christians rights of religion How shocking and radical.

In the end as you can read her main gripe is they support the Bishops on their marriage fight. For that they get bashed. Sad Sad piece

Five States 600 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against the Vatican Dismissed in Mississippi Federal Court

I am pretty amazed I am having the learn of the dismissal of this lawsuit via Vatican Radio. See Important case in the US against the Vatican dismissed

I am furthered amazed that past Insurance Commissioners Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma and Arkansas brought such an idiotic case and wanted to sue the Holy See for 600 million dollars!!

Making The Catholic Case On Contraception With Humor and Wit

Besides the Religious Liberty issues on the Birth Control mandate there is no reason for Catholic not to use this Crisis as a teaching moment. Bad Catholic , one of the best Catholics blogs on the net, with a great deal of humor and wit has Why Contraception Is a Bad Idea #1 — Natural Law

The best Catholic post of the week I have seen :) .

Louisiana State Mandated Segregated Catholic Schools and the Obama Birth Control Mandate

I saw this interesting reference from a LSU Journal on the renowned racist ( and dictator) Leander Perez

Three Louisiana State University scholars described the impressive third-party vote in Louisiana in 1960 as the outgrowth of "anticlericalism, which expresses itself whenever the [church] hierarchy attempts to go against popular political tendencies. It has led to severe conflicts between clergy and laity over issues of desegregation. Perez has certainly capitalized on these sentiments, and his recent excommunication [from the Catholic Church] has not slowed his activities appreciably. The fact, however, that the church condemns segregation was undoubtedly a decisive factor in Kennedy's [otherwise] success in south Louisiana."[3]


I have thought of Perez and desegregation of the Louisiana Catholic school System in light of this birth control mandate on Catholic institutions the Obama administration is pressing.

It's helpful to look at this Loyola University New Orleans paper The Role of Archbishop Joseph F. Rummel in the Desegregation of Catholic Schools in New Orleans . It's an interesting and short piece on a moment of United States Catholic History so read it all.

I was struck by a few things.

...In 1955 Rummel appointed a committee "to study the problem of integration of schools and its application to the schools of the Archdiocese" (McCulla 66-67). The letter recommended the earliest possible integration of the Catholic schools, beginning with the first grade. However, opposition among Catholic parishioners and lay leaders grew (McCulla 66-67). "Catholics had not advanced in their thinking about integration. Many parish school boards and parent groups voted by clear majorities to go on record against integration on any level in their local parochial schools" (McCulla 68). With some reservations, therefore, Rummel delayed immediately implementing the committee recommendation, but in February 1956, he published another pastoral letter unequivocally denouncing racial segregation as morally bankrupt. "Racial segregation as such is morally wrong and sinful because it is a denial of the unity and solidarity of the human race as conceived by God in the creation of Adam and Eve" (Rummel "Morality" 1).


The reaction from prominent segregationist Catholics was predictable. With outrage at the archbishop's forthrightness with his plans, some in the Louisiana Legislature introduced more bills seeking to maintain segregation in the parochial school system.

A writer in Catholic World stated that "It is to be hoped that these Catholics of Louisiana will wake up to the gravity of what they are planning to do. They are cooperating with a plan... whereby the State can interfere in the Church's mission of education" (Sheerin 4). In response to accusations of abuse of power "State Representative E.W. Gravolet, Jr., one of the Roman Catholic backers of the proposed segregation bill, promptly announced that 'we intend to go ahead with it, certainly'" ("Archbishop's Way" 80). Rummel in turn threatened to take drastic action: excommunication. ....

Now I find that plea from the Catholic World writer key then , and perhaps key now to our current debate over the mandate. He tried to alert and plea to these Louisiana racist Catholics do you not see the big picture here. Do you see what is perhaps even the GREATER LONG TERM EVIL?

That is the State of Louisiana is about through regulation interfere with the Governance of the Church . You might like the result of what Louisiana would propose ( MANDATED BY LAW ALL WHITE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS) ,but you will have Caesar subvert Christ in who governs the Church and her affairs.

Now notice what this law did not say. It did not say Churches had to be segregated or that Mass could not be integrated. It dealt with what some call today in the birth control mandate controversy the "business" of the Church. In this case education. As Catholics of course we don't see it as "business" ,but related to the Gospel message.

It might have been a tempting argument for Louisiana Catholics that felt their Priest ,and Bishops were so out of touch with reality of their flock as that article above shows in detail. ( sound familiar to an argument we hear today? ) .

In fact I dare to say to many who thought that segregation was the moral way God made the Universe it was tempting. But they did not bite in large on it.

The article goes into detail about the drama , but at the end recounts this:

...When Archbishop Rummel died on November 8, 1964, the Catholic Schools of the Archdiocese of New Orleans were, for all practical purposes, completely integrated" (McCulla 75). Registration did not drop and no violence was reported during the integration years. "'There's been a lot of grumbling down here,' said one New Orleans observer last week, 'but the majority of Catholics will go along; no one is kicking over the traces. Catholics still regard the archbishop as top man'" ("Satan" 67).

That is right the Archbishop was boss .

Catholics have a special relationship to the Bishop. We are tied to our Bishop whom is tied to the Universal Catholic Church. As St. Ignatius of Antioch who believed was ordained by Peter himself said :

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)

“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9).

In other words we are not congregationalist.

I bring that quote up that Catholics on all sides of the divide over the birth control issue should be wary of forces ,be they Government or others , that seek to interfere with this Divine mandated relationship.

We might have disagreements in the Church ,but it's our own business. Somehow Louisiana Catholics it appears in the heated emotional times of desegregation got that. Will we today?

Second there is the issue of religious liberty ,and the precedent that could be set on the issue we face today as to this mandate . Again going against their own invested personal interest some very inflamed racist Louisiana Catholics got that back in the day. The question is will we?

R.I.P. - Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua of Philadelphia

May God Grant him eternal rest.

The historic American Cardinal that sadly eneded his days in how he handled the scandal sex abuse crisis that his past Archiocese is having to grapple with has passed on. He was 88.

Rocco Palmo , who is Philly based, has two posts up Addio, Bevy -- Amid a Storm, Philadelphia Cardinal Dies at 88 and "I Join You in Commending Him to God": From the Vatican, Benedict on Bevilacqua

Tocqueville and The Religious Liberty Crisis At Vanderbilt University

I posted this link earlier. See Vanderbilt Catholics Unites For Religious Freedom and Association On Campus Today ( Wearing White Nationwide ) .

Of particular importance is this link Why I'm wearing white that describes the situation and crisis .

I was struck how much this had to do with a Mirrors of Justice post yesterday at The Importance of Institutional Pluralism. Now Vandy is a private University and does not have all the restrictions on it a public University has on it. So I recognize there are different legal dynamics going on. However it really struck me at root of this is a ethos we are seeing in the Government itself on other matters.

First let me excerpt that post:

...It strikes me that one’s view of the HHS mandate will often vary depending on whether one embraces “the logic of congruence,” in Nancy Rosenblum’s phrase, or a robust commitment to the freedom of civil society (churches, civic organizations, families, etc.), including toleration for views one sharply disagrees with. If the former, then you just have to bide your time until your side has a grasp on the levers of state power, and so, as Douthat points out, the increased authority of the state in these matters will eventually gore everyone’s ox--liberal or conservative, religious or not--depending on the politics of the administration.

As Rosenblum and Robert Post put it in the introduction to Civil Society and Government (Princeton, 2002):

Advocates of congruence fear that the multiplication of intermediate institutions does not mediate but balkanizes public life. They are apprehensive that plural associations and groups amplify self-interest, encourage arrant interest-group politics, exaggerate cultural egocentrism, and defy government. What is needed, in their view, is a strong assertion of public values and policies designed to loosen the hold of particular affiliations, so that members will be empowered to look beyond their groups and to identify themselves as members of the larger political community. The “logic of congruence” envisions civil society as reflecting common values and practices “all the way down.”

All of this was diagnosed by Tocqueville, who saw that individualism and statism are reinforcing over time, crowding out religious and other forms of associational life for the allegiance of citizens:


As in periods of equality no man is compelled to lend his assistance to his fellow men, and none has any right to expect much support from them, everyone is at once independent and powerless. These two conditions, which must never be either separately considered or confounded together, inspire the citizen of a democratic country with very contrary propensities. His independence fills him with self-reliance and pride among his equals; his debility makes him feel from time to time the want of some outward assistance, which he cannot expect from any of them, because they are all impotent and unsympathizing.

In this predicament he naturally turns his eyes to that imposing power which alone rises above the level of universal depression. Of that power his wants and especially his desires continually remind him, until he ultimately views it as the sole and necessary support of his own weakness. It frequently happens that the members of the community promote the influence of the central power without intending to.

Democratic eras are periods of experiment, innovation, and adventure. There is always a multitude of men engaged in difficult or novel undertakings, which they follow by themselves without shackling themselves to their fellows. Such persons will admit, as a general principle, that the public authority ought not to interfere in private concerns; but, by an exception to that rule, each of them craves its assistance in the particular concern on which he is engaged and seeks to draw upon the influence of the government for his own benefit, although he would restrict it on all other occasions.

If a large number of men applies this particular exception to a great variety of different purposes, the sphere of the central power extends itself imperceptibly in all directions, although everyone wishes it to be circumscribed. Thus a democratic government increases its power simply by the fact of its permanence. Time is on its side, every incident befriends it, the passions of individuals unconsciously promote it; and it may be asserted that the older a democratic community is, the more centralized will its government become.

Democracy in America, Vol. II, Pt. 4, Ch. 3

Is not that logic of congruence really what is going on here? There is of course the " Nation of Vanderbilt " that includes Government ( administration), social services ( food , FOOTBALL, housing ) , and of course the education component.

But like all places of higher learning there are other important Independent Institutions that play a vital role in life of the country of Vanderbilt.

Those might be social ( Frats), charitable and service ( Circle K ), political ( Young Republicans and Democrats ) , ethnic ( the Black Student Union) and needless to say religious.

It appears that there is some concern that people of a LGBT orientations or various degrees of same sex attraction might be discriminated against. At least that seems ONE of the concerns of the Vandy administration. Therefore something needs to be done about these " plural associations and groups that amplify self-interest, encourage arrant interest-group politics, exaggerate cultural egocentrism, and defy government ".

Now I am not sure there is really any real threat to the rights of LGBT students or anyone else. But damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead anyway. The fact that if the policy results in a former Baptist now Catholic heading the Baptist Student Association is no matter.

This all seems pretty radical ,and I think the bigger issue of congruence is at play. What we see at Vandy is playing out on a larger scale nationwide. Where will this attitude and policy choice lead in the end is what we don't know.

Vanderbilt Catholics Unites For Religious Freedom and Association On Campus Today ( Wearing White Nationwide )

Students at Texas A & M Wear White In Support of Religious Freedom At Vanderbilt University

Well it appears folks nationwide are protesting the absurd new policy at Vanderbilt University today that attacks religious freedom and association. See Why I'm wearing white

Also see the above video. The very dynamic Vanderbilt Catholic group ( Where we have the very dynamic FOCUS involvement too) have been in the front lines of this too.

Legally no doubt these groups are not in a great position. It's a private University so they can do things a public University cannot. However I find it astonishing that this is going on at what we are told is the academic Jewel of the South Eastern Conference. If you are on Twitter follow the hash tag #wearevanderbilttoo

Update - See my post Tocqueville and The Religious Liberty Crisis At Vanderbilt University

Sadly Meeting Between Pope Benedict And Russian Orthodox Patriarch Not Happening .

Well to say the least this is disappointing news coming off Christian Unity week . Protect the Pope has the link and thoughts at Russian Patriarch dashes hopes of meeting with Pope Benedict

Senator Mary Landrieu In Tough Spot On Jindal Education Reform Plan

The New Orleans Picayune had a good piece yesterday Mary Landrieu walks tightrope on Bobby Jindal's education plans . This seems to put her odds with her State Party to a certain degree.

I think Jindal should do everything to encourage her support ,or at the very least keep her quiet on things she does not like about the plan.

Media Coverage Lacking on Opening Weekend Of Bishops Offensive Against Obama Birth Control Mandate

Get Religion has a ton of links of interest packed into this piece Catholics outraged, media unimpressed.

This is going to be a daily matter on this blog as best as I can find relevant material to link.

Catholics and other concerned parties should not be putting their hope in two baskets.

One that a Republican will be elected President and the regualtion will be removed

OR

That the Court system will overturn this law. I am quite frankly not as optimistic as some that the Courts will overturn this law. Further the Court system moves at a glacier pace and in some Dioceses the damage might be done , depending on Circuit they are in, by the time the ( and this is a big IF they take it ) the Supreme Court decided to take the case.

Direct political heat must be applied to the Obama administration on this. Perhaps someone will make the political caculation this is not worth it and the new regulation will be withdrawn. I still think that is plausiable and I suspect that's the Bishops hope.

Obama Birth Control Mandate Threatens Catholic Services to Immigrants Regardless of Legal Status

Cafe Con Leche Republicans has a good post up at Obama’s Attack on Religious Liberty is an Attack on Immigrants. It is truly amazing the far reaching potential effect here of this move by the Obama administration on the Birth Control mandate

I also think they are right to bring up on "our side" parts of the problematic Alabama immigration law.

Regardless we could be in a situation where it's very likely the Church would be severely hampered in its mission to minister to the immigrant ( of varying degrees of legal or non legal status). This very well could put some of these immigrants in danger.

Finally I let me put this in profane secular terms. It's put the Catholic Church at a major disadvantage to other Faith groups . Not all these people are Catholics but many are. I find it mind blowing that the Methodists, main line Protestants Baptists, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals are being given this "competitive advantage".

Common Law Tradition of Religious Liberty and the Obama Birth Control Mandate

Catholics are the first often to get that is a difference between "Freedom of Worship " and "Freedom of Religion".

So when lets say the Secretary of State uses the more restricted "Freedom of Worship" in a speech alarms bells go off in Catholic Internet land.

On the issue of the Obama birth control mandate even Catholic dissenters on the birth control issue I think sense something is not right.

There was a interesting article at the National Review that makes an important point . See Religious Liberty and Civil Society

....As many have noted around here, the fact of the administration’s willingness to do this sheds light on its hostility to (or at the very least its contempt for) religious liberty. But it’s not quite that simple. This incident (and especially the nature of the exemption that the administration was willing to grant, which is essentially an exemption for actual houses of worship but not for other religiously-affiliated institutions) also sheds light on a very deeply rooted problem in our tradition of religious liberty itself—a problem that should cause those of us inclined to seek recourse in “conscience protection” and religious exemptions to pause and think.

The English common law tradition of religious toleration, which we inherited, has always had a problem with religious institutions that are not houses of worship—i.e. that are geared to ends other than the practice of religion itself. To (vastly) oversimplify for a moment, that tradition began (in the 16th century, and in some respects even earlier) with the aim of protecting Protestant dissenters and Jews but (very intentionally) not protecting Catholics.

And the way it took shape over the centuries in an effort to sustain that distinction was by drawing a line between individual religious practice (in which the government could not interfere) and an institutional religious presence (which was given far less protection). Because Catholicism is a uniquely institutional religion—with large numbers of massive institutions for providing social services, educating children and adults, and the like, all of which are more or less parts of a single hierarchy—this meant Catholics were simply not granted the same protection as others. Obviously the intent to treat Catholics differently has for the most part fallen away since then, but the evolved legal tradition is very much with us, and it is not a coincidence that it always seems to be the Catholic Church that gets caught up in these situations when the government overreaches.....

Mirrors of Justice takes up on this theme and others at The Importance of Institutional Pluralism

Lawyer For Social Justice In New Orleans On Road To Becoming A Nun

A rather nice inspiring article about a Catholic Convert in the New Orlean's Picayune. See Young lawyer fights for social justice on her way to becoming a nun

The New Papacy of Episcopal Church USA Hits A Rough Spot

I am one of the few Catholic bloggers it seems that takes an interest in the Episcopal Church on a consistent basis. In fact I might do a ost soon on their first prayer book.

I find a lot of the issues in this faith community pretty intriguing. For instance I think it is beyond dispute that the National Church has gained more power in just a matter of decades versus the local Dioceses. Further that has meant the "Presiding Bishop " ( Now Primate ? ) has gained more power. Many are wondering how exactly this happened but it has.

So I saw with interest at MCJ this interesting dust up between the leadership. See AS THE WORLD TURNS

This comment I thought was apt:


Dear Bonnie,
I regret to inform you that yes, Katharine is the boss of you. Oh, you may be President of the House of Deputies, but that just means they’re happy to let you play in your sandbox with all the other kindergartners while the real power is elsewhere.
Don’t believe me? Okay, then explain the following points:

(a) Why the insistence in the lawsuits that TEC is so too a hierarchical church, with the Presiding Bishop (and no mention of anyone else that I remember) having a fiduciary duty to sue the hassocks out of any departing members? In a hierarchy, there are people at the top and people at the bottom.

(b) You lot are the ones who introduced clericalism into the mix. If you hadn’t made it a matter of JUSTICE!!!! and CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!! to hang a stole, surplice and cope on first women and then the LGBT constituency so that they could be clergypersons and bishops, then maybe we might believe all that guff about TEC is democratic, the laity have just as much influence and status as the clergy, yadda yadda yadda. I don’t see you demanding that the World Tiddlywinks Championship should have a special LGBT league as a matter of justice and civil rights. So obviously, as far as you guys are concerned, the vestments are where it’s at.

(c) Why is your Presiding Bishop a Primate (after the not-so-kind gorilla jokes about Global South primates, too?) To give her equal status with the archbishops and primates of the other member churches of the Anglican Communion – you know, those same Neanderthals, knuckle-draggers and chicken-dinner eaters that you lot looked down your noses at whilst wrapping yourselves in Old Glory and lecturing them about what a special snowflake TEC was, with its democratic polity and three equal houses of representation?

(d) What’s with the “2.4 million members in 16 countries and 110 dioceses” bit on the website? Could this possibly be nudging towards a claim that you lot are an international communion – or even a worldwide denomination – of your very own? Because correct me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t the churches of Ecuador, Colombia, Haiti and so forth be their very own churches, given that you’re not fans of colonialism?

(e) Putting points (c) and (d) together, could it possibly be that the Presiding Bishop feels herself to be the equal of, and playing the same role as, the Archbishop of Canterbury? Or better yet, the Pope, since poor old Rowan gets hammered every time he tries to exercise a fragment of discipline and authority with loud yells of “No Anglican Pope here!” and “We don’t want a Curia!”

(f) All of which mean, that sorry, but you being a laywoman and she being the Pope person in the biggest of the big hats, she can talk to whomsoever she darn well likes without let or hindrance from you. Next thing you know, you won’t even let her process into the House of Deputies carrying her crosier and wearing her mitre! (Remember all the kerfuffle over the ‘insulting treatment’ of Bishop Jefferts Schori when the Archbishop enforced the same rules on visiting clergy and who can and who cannot exhibit tokens of governance as you’re trying to enforce here with who can and who can’t directly talk to the Deputies without going through you first?).

This is nothing new of course . Back in the 70's and 80's when Progressives ruled the Catholic Church in the USA they could use and accumulate power quite well.

Sister ( x) might do a good job of talking about the all male un democractic Church , but she was pretty good at the local Parish or Campus Ministry of freezing out "pre Vatican II" folks and replacing them with the "Spirit of Vatican II crowd. I saw this on the Campus Ministry level where religious were dominant all the time.

Progressives no matter their sex or sexual orientation are very good at accumulating power and using it for the common good. How this plays out in the Episcopal Church remains to be seen. There might be signs of regret to come yet.

The Anti Catholic and Anti Bishop Tone of the Birth Control Mandate Debate

Back to the birth control mandate issue ,and another troubling facet of it. That is the blatant anti Catholicism and anti Bishop tone that is not even hidden.

At MOJ there is a post Confusion about "conscience" where a couple of supporters of the mandate are engaged.

......Bugyis writes, "[a]s it stands, the bishops and other religious leaders seem intent on protecting their prerogative to coerce rather than counsel, and this is a slap in the faces of the faithful, who have already endured and forgiven so much loss of moral credibility among their clergy." Again, the bishops are not "coercing" anyone, and the question whether the Church's teaching on contraception has been persuasive (to most people, obviously, it has not), should be entirely irrelevant to the question (I understand that it is relevant to the Administration's political calculations) whether a government that is constitutionally and culturally committed to religious freedom should make Catholic institutions subsidize employees' contraception. At the end of the day, it seems to me that Bugyis welcomes the mandate out of something like spite, as a kind of justified punishment, or come-uppance, of the Church for its failure to confess error and reform in the direction he would like. Very disappointing.

Sadly this is too common, but there is little doubt that the Obama administration and it's friends on this issue will engage on it in various ways some subtle some not.

As Prof Garnett states here:

...The decision is all the more unattractive for being so obviously political, in a low sense. It appears to me that the Administration simply decided that -- perhaps because the Bishops' stock is low in American culture at the moment, and perhaps because the polls and many advisors assure them that, because most Catholics report that they don't accept the Church's teachings on contraception (remember, though, this mandate covers some abortion-causing drugs, too) -- it would not face any serious political cost if it imposed the mandate, but it would demoralize "the base" during a re-election campaign if it did not. Catholics were quite useful during the 2008 campaign and, apparently, the Administration believes that this decision will not cause Catholics to stay home or switch sides in sufficient numbers to undermine the 2012 effort.

There is no an huge element of pay back time that one sees as to this issue. When Roe V Wade happened it was the Catholic Church that raised it's voice. In fact they had to spend years getting many Evangelicals on their side. It is forgotten now ,but it was an acceptable position among even many Fundamentalist to be pro-choice on the issue. The resolutuions of the Southern Baptist Convention on abortion in the early 70's are instructive on this .

So organization like NOW , NARAL, and MS Magazine no doubt see an opportunity to strike while the Bishops are not in great PR shape.

The fact that Bishops are at a low PR moment should be a sign to many in the Administration that more caution is urged on this matter not less.

I have no doubt that there are people that are committed to the Fist amendment in the Obama administration that can see beyond the short term political gain. That is the danger that the coercive power of Government is being used in a climate of not so hidden anti Catholicism. Who will be next? This is something sadly that will not be able to be contained in one party I think.

The "But the majority of Catholics" argument is the most dangerous to the health of this Republic.

First it flirting quite dangerously with the thought that the Government can decide what is an essential belief of a Faith.

Second it interferes with he internal workings of the Church and it's Governance by trying to drive a wedge between its Bishops and the Laity.

Now of of course people are free under the First Amendment to do the above. But if we start hearing "But the majoruty of Catholics" argument at Government Press conference and publications we are in troubled waters.

American Dictators and Catholics

I know a older lady that is quite involved with Republican politics . She is so conservative she makes me look like a raging liberal. She has a strong opinion of Huey Long who she encountered in her youth in Winn parish . That is he was a SAINT.

He also was a raging Dictator.

American Catholic engages an George Will Column at George Will on Obama’s Militaristic Rhetoric . This part struck me:

...In his first inaugural address, FDR demanded “broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.” He said Americans must “move as a trained and loyal army” with “a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.” The next day, addressing the American Legion, Roosevelt said it was “a mistake to assume that the virtues of war differ essentially from the virtues of peace.” In such a time, dissent is disloyalty.

Yearnings for a command society were common and respectable then. Commonweal, a magazine for liberal Catholics, said that Roosevelt should have “the powers of a virtual dictatorship to reorganize the government.” Walter Lippmann, then America’s preeminent columnist, said: “A mild species of dictatorship will help us over the roughest spots in the road ahead.” The New York Daily News, then the nation’s largest-circulation newspaper, cheerfully editorialized: “A lot of us have been asking for a dictator. Now we have one. . . . It is Roosevelt. . . . Dictatorship in crises was ancient Rome’s best era.” The New York Herald Tribune titled an editorial “For Dictatorship if Necessary.......”

I suspect that was common. This was also the era that gave us the movie Gabriel Over the White House.

I wonder who in Catholic Social Justice and political tradition opposed people like Huey Long and indeed maybe even Roosevelt. Anyone?

Pope Benedict Had Problems With Doves Yesterday ( Funny Video )

Well this is pretty funny. Thanks to Catholic Vote and their post Charming Video: Pope Scolds Stubborn Doves, Ad Libs “They Wan’t To Stay in the Pope’s House!” “Mama Mia!”

Where In the United States You Can Get Away With Murder

This is a pretty fun and easy to read Law Review article. See The Perfect Crime available for download here .

Say that you are in the Idaho portion of Yellowstone and you decide to spice up your vacation by going on a crime spree," Kalt writes in a forthcoming paper for the Georgetown Law Journal. "You make some , the state in which the crime was committed. "Perhaps if you fuss convincingly enough about it the case would be sent to Idaho. "But the Sixth Amendment then requires that the jury be fmoonshine, you poach some wildlife, you strangle some people and steal their picnic baskets."You are arrested, arraigned in the park and bound over for trial in Cheyenne, Wyoming, before a jury drawn from the Cheyenne area. "But Article III [Section 2] plainly requires that the trial be held in Idahorom the state - Idaho - and the district - Wyoming - in which the crime was committed. "In other words, the jury would have to be drawn from the Idaho portion of Yellowstone which, according to the 2000 Census has a population of precisely zero. "Assuming that you do not feel like consenting to trial in Cheyenne, you should go free."

Now this Law Review article is from 2005 and got some press coverage even on the BBC. However from my research it appears that this problem has not been corrected strangely.

Response to the Disappointing New York Times Position on Birth Control Mandate

Update - Mirrors of Justice Link fixed

A rather disappointing New York Times Op Ed from their editorial board. See Birth Control and Reproductive Rights. It' not that their position is unexpected , but well they don't deal with the major objections.

I read this article today Birmingham Catholic Diocese's new warehouse just in time that deals with a major purchase and investment to help the Tornado victims to recover and it got me thinking about the future.

From the New York Times Op Ed:

.....The requirement, announced last August, contains an exemption for employees of churches and other houses of worship. But it properly covers employees of hospitals, universities, charitable groups and other entities that are associated with religious organizations but serve the general public and employ people of different faiths. The final version of the rule gives certain nonprofit employers an extra year to comply. The administration’s commitment to affordable birth control is welcome at a moment when women’s access to reproductive health care, including contraceptives, cancer screenings and abortion services, is under assault in the courts, state legislatures and Congress, as well as on the Republican campaign trail.....

Reading that it seems that the Catholic operation and employees in Alabama might be covered. Hire a Methodist and help Pentecostal Tornado victims ,and it appears one has go against core teachings.

Mirrors of Justice has a good post today at "Government and its Rivals". In it they quote Ross Douthat also of the Times but who has a different view. He says in part:

WHEN liberals are in a philosophical mood, they like to cast debates over the role of government not as a clash between the individual and the state, but as a conflict between the individual and the community. Liberals are for cooperation and joint effort; conservatives are for self-interest and selfishness. Liberals build the Hoover Dam and the interstate highways; conservatives sit home and dog-ear copies of “The Fountainhead.” Liberals know that it takes a village; conservatives pretend that all it takes is John Wayne . . .

. . . But there are trade-offs as well, which liberal communitarians don’t always like to acknowledge. When government expands, it’s often at the expense of alternative expressions of community, alternative groups that seek to serve the common good. Unlike most communal organizations, the government has coercive power — the power to regulate, to mandate and to tax. These advantages make it all too easy for the state to gradually crowd out its rivals. The more things we “do together” as a government, in many cases, the fewer things we’re allowed to do together in other spheres. . . .
. . .
The more the federal government becomes an instrument of culture war, the greater the incentive for both conservatives and liberals to expand its powers and turn them to ideological ends. It is Catholics hospitals today; it will be someone else tomorrow.

The White House attack on conscience is a vindication of health care reform’s critics, who saw exactly this kind of overreach coming. But it’s also an intimation of a darker American future, in which our voluntary communities wither away and government becomes the only word we have for the things we do together

The Church Cannot De Baptize People - France

Rare day that I get to talk about the Sacrament of Baptism twice. See Holy Sacramental Confusion In The New York Daily News - Getting Rebaptized

From Get Religion we have Wash away your affiliation . I very much would like to read a Enlgish translation of tht French Judge's opinion. But the Church is quite right that one can't debaptize a person. Also I have hard time with the concept that it can be forced to " rewrite" history.

Holy Sacramental Confusion In The New York Daily News - Getting Rebaptized

Involving a soon to be Cardinal no less. See Dolan gets a holy dip on holy trip

Archbishop Dolan followed in the footsteps of John the Baptist Sunday and was rebaptized in the River Jordan during the lastest stop on his Holy Land pilgrimage........

I can assure you that whatever symbolic ritual happened there it was not "baptism" ,and I don't think the Cardinal would view it as that.

Catholics do not re baptize people when they come in the Church as long as the Trinity has been involved. Its a rather big deal and why "one Baptism" is mentioned in the creed each week.

The Money Quote On Incompetence of Pope Benedict 's Aides At Time

I linked this John Allen piece with other links on what the matter of what some call the Vatican "Corruption" Scandal we are dealing with this week.

John Allen has perhaps the money quote of Benedict's Pontificate as to the people that advise Pope Benedict and carry out ( we hope ) his wishes. I bold the money quote at the end of this excerpt which I contend at times can apply to other matters:

..In truth, money management is one of the few areas in which Benedict XVI has actually taken a strong interest in terms of internal administration. Rocked by a series of scandals, including the 2010 seizure of $30 million in Vatican Bank assets for allegedly violating European money-laundering protocols, Benedict created a new Financial Information Authority in December 2010 with the power to oversee the transactions of every department in the Vatican. Given the notoriously compartmentalized culture of the place, this amounts to a real revolution.
Benedict has also directed the Vatican to come into compliance with international norms on financial transparency. Ironically, the same day the Viganò story broke, the Vatican announced it had ratified three U.N. conventions intended to curb illegal currency flows and transactions around the globe.

In part, these efforts reflect a realization by Benedict XVI that he can't credibly preach to the outside world about the need for greater ethics in the economy, as he has repeatedly done, if the perception is that he doesn't have his own house in order.
Why, then, if Benedict is committed to glasnost, would Viganò be shipped off -- especially in light of the mixed signal it inevitably sends?

Most Vatican-watchers believe the answer lies in Bertone, whom everyone admires as a sincere and affable guy, but who's also been a decidedly mixed bag as an administrator. In this case, insiders say Bertone was persuaded that Viganò was disruptive, and thus fell back on the classic Vatican logic of "promoting to remove" without adequate consideration of how that move would look. incompetence

At a bare minimum, Bertone had to know since October that Viganò's correspondence with the pope, which was widely alluded to at the time, amounted to a ticking time-bomb. That no steps were taken to get ahead of the story thus represents yet another chapter in the checkered PR record of the last six years.

In the Middle Ages, alchemists sought to turn lead into gold. Some of Benedict's aides actually seem to have a genius for turning potential public relations gold, in this case Benedict's impressive financial reforms, into lead.

Archbishop Aymond of New Orleans Interviewed By Vatican Radio ( Guess What Issue Was Huge )

Among other things right off the top RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CONCERNS. However there is more. See via Vatican Radio the link and overview US Ad limina: New Orleans in Rome .

He also talks about the Year of Faith and how they are focused on the Eucharist .

How God Removed Hate From Justice Clarence Thomas 's Heart

There has been a book that I thought would be getting attention that is out. That is the Fraternity which relates the the lives of Clarence Thomas and four other African American Men the Priest/ President of Holy Cross mentored and nutured.

It appears this affects Justice Thomas still a great deal .

Justice Clarence Thomas became emotional during a speech at his college alma mater on Thursday as he remembered the time he had dropped out of the seminary and got kicked out of his home.....

Before going to Holy Cross, he was just a “lonely kid,” Thomas said. “In the summer of 1968, I had no place to go and no idea what I was going to do,” Thomas said. “I was 19. “My only hope was Holy Cross College, a place I'd never seen and had barely heard of.”

At the school, Thomas said he “enjoyed the first brief glimpses of what it meant to be educated” and pledged to give up his anger. “It was here, directly in front of the chapel, on the morning of April 16, 1970, that I promised the Almighty God that if he took hate out of my heart I would never hate again,” Thomas recalled. “He did and I have not.”

The British Are Coming - Archbishop of Canterbury Versus Episcopal Church Imperialism and Exceptionalism

Hmm why is this not getting covered more. No matter what you think of the argument this language is rather explosive.

In Anglican News we have this thing called the Anglican Covenant which is an attempt to impose some slight order on the Communion as to theology and practice. Which sort of makes sense because being in Communion means at least shared beliefs about the very basics I would think.

In other words some Anglican parts of the Communions think before an essential doctrine is changed everyone in the Communion should sign on. The Archbishop of Canterbury likes that idea the United States Episcopal Church ( which is why this got started) hates it.

Well a Canon Librarian at Norwich Cathedral by the name of Stephen Doll's paper has produced "Anglican Covenant - Bishop's Council" which was circulated to all bishops in the Church of England.

It's motivation is to encourage support for the Anglican Covenant and appears to have the Archbishop of Canterbury's approval . I repeat even on this side of the pond it's very much assumed the Archbishop of Canterbury approved this paper to go forward .

It contains some wording that must drive the more progressive liberal leadership of the Episcopal Church USA up the wall. After some interesting history of deletions in the first Prayer book of the Episcopal Church USA he lets it fly:

...My fear is that we no longer care enough about unity to hold on to it. Unity is
not an idea that means much in the context of American religious life. Americans are
strongly imbued with a sense of their own ‘exceptionalism’, and this is (if possible)
even more true of their religious than of their political and social life.5 The particular
extreme reformed Protestantism that arrived with the early settlers has formed the
theological habits of the continent, with a conviction that in the new world the
original humanity, before-the-fall humanity could be recovered. ...


....The American religious experience is like no other, and even if American
Anglicans have historically identified themselves as standing apart from evangelical
Protestantism, as being a cut above socially and intellectually, their actual experience
is nevertheless deeply imbued with these same primordialist assumptions. From the
beginning of the Republic, American Anglicans assumed their church was ‘purer’
than the Mother Church of England because they had disposed of state establishment.
America is a self-referring cultural power; it does not occur to most Americans to
consult others, politically or spiritually, to arrive at an understanding of truth and
right.....


....I don’t think it takes much knowledge or experience of the Episcopal Church
to see the power that this ‘American Religion’ has over its life. If ‘personal
experience’ has absolute authority, if finding the ‘real me’ is the central quest of
human existence, then the individual requires complete freedom of choice
unconstrained by any authority outside the self. A church inculturated in such a
setting will affirm the individual quest in all its forms. Inclusion becomes a
fundamental value for the church, the unconditional affirmation of all personal
experience of whatever race, creed, gender, or sexuality. The purpose of the church is
to validate those who have found their true identity and have thus found God. This
would seem to be the thinking behind a recent orthodoxy of the Episcopal Church, the
welcoming of all of whatever faith or none to communion. This seems to me a much
more serious issue than the current disagreements over sexuality. By obviating the
need for baptism, it leaves no space for the atoning power of Christ’s death and
resurrection, repentance, faith or holiness of life...

...The attitude of the Episcopal Church is very firmly, ‘No one can tell us what to do.’....


...It is utter nonsense, I would argue, to equate the current American experience with that of African and Asian post-colonial societies. And yet if we take the statement at face-value, it must express how these
Episcopalians feel about their situation. These rich and powerful Americans, the most
privileged people on earth, identify their own experience of being oppressed and
persecuted for their advocacy of gay rights with, for example, the experience of black
South Africans under apartheid...

And then the bomb


...American church is not prepared to accept further consultation or dialogue over this issue nor to wait for the rest of the church to catch up with its own understanding of the place of same-sex relationships
in the life of the church. Whatever is acceptable and right in a particular American
cultural context must be universally applicable to every other culture and context.
There is more than an element of cultural imperialism in these American attitudes.
Ironically, they resonate strongly with the gung-ho combination of domestic
isolationism and foreign interventionism of American political life which so many
American liberals deplore, and yet they don’t seem to be able to see the parallels here..

Well Well Well.

As to be expected some folks did not like that. See this response here at Anti-Americanism and the Anglican Covenant.

In response to that a former Episcopalian went into quite a lengthy frisking of the response to the response that is a must read at PROMISED LAND.

I might add there is some truth to this sadly in the American Catholic Church. Who cares what the rest of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox world thinks WE American Catholics want this so do it damn it. The sin of schism is just so overblown you know.