Significant progress on global malnutrition can be made in 2011, the ecumenical anti-hunger group Bread for the World said Monday (Nov. 22) in its new annual report on hunger.
The U.S. government’s “Feed the Future” initiative has the potential to reduce hunger by addressing long-term economic development and focusing on small farmers, said Asma Lateef, director of Bread for the World Institute.
Father FESSIO: …in which he said that the pope has not changed the in-church teaching. He expressed very carefully something about the use of condoms in which the intention might reflect a movement towards a more moral way of life.
What the pope is saying is it’s immoral to use condoms under any circumstances. However, if someone is using them because he’s trying to prevent disease in his partner, that may be the first stirrings of a moral consciousness which can lead him to a more moral way of life.
KELLY: Are you saying that the pope was perhaps using some sort of sliding scale here? That while not condoning contraception, not condoning homosexuality, he’s signaling that they are not the worst evils, and that passing on HIV is worse?
Father FESSIO: He’s not giving a scale of evil or good here. But let me give you a pretty simple example. Let’s suppose we’ve got a bunch of muggers who like to use steel pipes when they mug people. But some muggers say, gosh, you know, we don’t need to hurt them that badly to rob them. Let’s put foam pads on our pipes. Then we’ll just stun them for a while, rob them and go away. So if the pope then said, well, yes, I think that using padded pipes is actually a little step in a moral direction there, that doesn’t mean he’s justifying using padded pipes to mug people. He’s just saying, well, they did something terrible, but while they were doing that, they had a little flicker of conscience there that led them in the right direction. That may grow further, so they stop mugging people completely.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for an “urgent” debate on homosexual clergy, signalling a possible liberalisation of the Church of England’s attitude to the issue.
In his presidential address to the General Synod, Dr Rowan Williams criticised extremists on both sides of the debate as “unthinking”….
For those of you interested you may find it here. They are discussing the covenant now.
The danger in the current situation is that arguments over the details of the covenant text or how the covenant might be used are distracting us from central theological and ecclesiological questions which lie at the heart of the vision of our life together articulated in the covenant. Those rejecting the covenant have not, in their critiques, set out any credible theological and practical alternative either of a vision of our life as a fellowship of churches or of what we should do now given the reality of our fractured but still much treasured communion. Indeed, Jonathan Clatworthy claims ”˜Those who oppose a change do not normally feel obliged to propose a different change’ while Chris Sugden and Vinay Samuel simply claim we need ”˜to recognise the role that the Jerusalem Declaration could play’. More seriously, although never clearly articulated or justified, behind their critiques are understandings on some key theological areas addressed by the covenant which are seriously flawed.
Jonathan Clatworthy ends his response by claiming that recent controversies and ethical and theological disagreement ”˜should be resolved by patient, informed ethical and theological dialogue, not by ecclesiastical power politics and threats of exclusion’. That will require scrutiny not only of the covenant but of the arguments and alternatives of those rejecting it from polar opposite and incompatible perspectives. We need to hear and weigh not just the criticisms of the proposed covenant but the alternative proposals of those who are currently challenging the covenant’s way forward.
The only way to allow the Church of England ”“ and perhaps the wider Communion – to engage in ”˜patient, informed ethical and theological dialogue’ about this crucial issue is to vote for the motion in Synod. This makes no binding commitment but allows diocesan synods and ongoing debate in other arenas to inform Synod’s final decision in 2012. To vote against or to abstain suddenly puts into reverse the general support given to the Windsor and covenant processes by the Church of England and its General Synod and makes the Archbishop of Canterbury’s already difficult calling well-nigh impossible. Anything but a ”˜yes’ vote is, in short, to engage in ”˜ecclesiastical power politics’ and, far from being inclusive, excludes much of the church from further informed discussion and discernment about how we should live together in future.
Be thou, O Lord, our shield and defence as we travel along the perplexing path of life, with its many difficulties and dangers. So guide and protect us here on earth, that we may find eternal rest when our journey is finished and our work is done; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.”
–Luke 19:10
The Queen has spoken of the “difficult” and even “painful” choices facing the Church of England as she formally opened the Church’s national assembly in Westminster.
The five years ahead will not always be “straightforward”, she told lay members, clergy and bishops gathered at Church House.
“The new Synod will have many issues to resolve to ensure that the Church of England remains equipped for the effective pursuit of its mission and ministry,” she said. “Some will, no doubt, involve difficult, even painful, choices. “But Christian history suggests that times of growth and spiritual vigour have often coincided with periods of challenge and testing. What matters is holding firmly to the need to communicate the gospel with joy and conviction in our society.”
One can see the same dynamic at work in the advertisement “Who runs the Church?” composed by members of Inclusive Church and Modern Church. The implicit (and occasionally explicit) vision of the authors is of a church in which “Anglicans have traditionally valued the role of reason and thus expect to learn from other people.” It is a vision of a non-dogmatic church that is forward-looking, devoted to debating matters at a local level, and eager to learn from others. Their cry, if you will, is that “Anglicanism is not dogmatic” and that “Anglicans have never accepted the primacy of Scripture in a Puritanical manner.”
This delightfully gentle vision of Anglicanism suffers from only one flaw: it has very little basis in reality. While liberal Anglicanism has long sought a utopian church that is non-dogmatic about everything but the dogmas of tolerance, non-dogmatism, and social justice, this has never been a position that has laid claim to more than a minority among Anglicans. To the contrary, even the most cursory reading of Anglican history will show that we have a long and notable history of being dogmatic, intolerant, occasionally authoritarian, and gleefully happy to impose a particular interpretation of Scripture on others. I suspect that the Roman Catholics burned at the stake, the Puritans whose ears were lopped off, the Non-Conformists who were fined for not attending their parish church, the evangelicals who were attacked for their “enthusiasm,” the Ritualists who were put on trial or (worse) tarred-and-feathered, or the so-called conservatives and liberals of today who feel threatened by their church would question just how tolerant and non-dogmatic Anglicanism actually is. In reality, Anglicanism is a bit like those late medieval knights who imagined themselves to be noble and chivalric even as they raided and pillaged defenseless towns and villages. At times we’re a little too willing to believe our own smug press.
Theologians and global health experts Monday were still analyzing the meaning and potential implications of the pope condoning the use of condoms in certain circumstances – specifically by male prostitutes.
Some saw a deliberate effort by Benedict to open the door to more frank talks about the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of HIV infection, talks that more-liberal Catholics hope would eventually lead to greater church acceptance of birth control. Others saw it as a casual comment being overblown by hopeful progressives.
“Until now, the church has never condoned the use of condoms to prevent sexually transmitted disease,” said Sister Carol Taylor, a clinical nurse and bioethics researcher at Georgetown University. “This on its own doesn’t change anything, but it could open the door and lead to other exceptions to the church’s stance on condoms.”
Some AIDS prevention activists have seized on the pope’s comments as a reversal, however subtle. But more traditional types, and the Vatican spokesman, emphasized Monday that the pope spoke about only one narrow situation in his wording – delivered in an interview with a German journalist whose book will be published Tuesday. Excerpts were released over the weekend.
While many honoured the memories of Canada’s fallen soldiers this month, the city of Montreal was issuing a demolition permit for what long has been known as the city’s church for soldiers.
The Centre hospitalier de l’Universite de Montreal will use that permit to demolish the former Trinity Anglican Church, which has stood at thecornerof St. DenisSt. and Viger Ave. since 1865.
The church -rechristened Eglise St. Sauveur after the First World War -is to be torn down starting thisweek by St. Pierre Excavations, which will kick off the destruction by levelling four adjacent greystones that used to house tourist rooms and apartments on the block bounded by Viger, la Gauchetiere St., St. Denis and Sanguinet St. to make room for the superhospital.
The other issue, still bitterly divisive in the Communion, is that of our approach to same-sex unions. It is inevitable that, whether in open debate or in general discussion, this will be around during the lifetime of this Synod. I shall make only a brief comment here, having said a fair amount on the subject this time last year and in other settings. And it is that this has become a cardinal example of how we avoid theological debate. The need for some thoughtful engagement that will help us understand how people who read the same Bible and share the same baptism can come to strongly diverse conclusions is getting more urgent, because I sense that in the last few years the debate on sexuality has not really moved much. It is unthinkingly treated by some as almost the sole test of biblical fidelity or doctrinal orthodoxy; it is unthinkingly regarded by others as one of those matters on which the Church must be brought inexorably into line with what our culture can make sense of. Neither side always has the opportunity of clarifying how they see the focal theological issues ”“ how one or the other position relates to our belief in a divine Saviour. And if we are not to be purely tribal about this, we need the chance for some sort of discussion that is not dominated by the need to make an instant decision or to react to developments and pressures elsewhere.
Let me be clear. I don’t in the least mean to say that there is a lack of theological work on either side. Comments I have made on this subject in communications with the Communion, in which I stressed that what had to make up our minds should be theology not social convention, have been interpreted as ignoring or dismissing the quantity and quality of existing work. This is not at all my point. Of course there is a formidable literature in this area, with much theological sophistication; but in the debates we involve ourselves in, in and out of Synod, here and elsewhere in the Communion, the prevailing tone is often rather different. If you think that there is no respectable debate to be had, or if you think that the debate is entirely over, it is unlikely that there will be a useful exchange. But this means that our disagreement will too easily become just that familiar struggle to win leverage rather than to arrive at shared understanding. I’m told fairly often that the lack of advance in nurturing this debate properly is a serious failure in the leadership of the Church and the Communion. I am bound to accept my share of reproach; but I would want to invite you all to help me do better by working with me to create the ambience where better understanding may happen. I hope that Synod will not be averse to thinking about how we can take this forward, without the pressure of feeling we have some single and all-important decision to make. Happily we can point to the methods currently being developed in the ‘Continuing Indaba’ project, with its success in creating many such spaces for face-to- face discussion across cultures. This project, which is considering a wide range of actually and potentially divisive matters, has been pursued with heroic energy and imagination by many people of profoundly diverse convictions in the Communion and needs prayer and support.
This in turn takes us to one of the more sensitive areas we have to look at ”“ how we handle the Covenant proposals. One or two things need saying here. This is by no means the first time we have discussed the Covenant in Synod or in the Church of England. Our input into the process has been considerable, and it has come from theologians of widely divergent views. The Covenant text itself represents work done by theologians of similarly diverse views, including several from North America. It does not invent a new orthodoxy or a new system of doctrinal policing or a centralised authority, quite explicitly declaring that it does not seek to override any province’s canonical autonomy. After such a number of discussions and revisions, it is dispiriting to see the Covenant still being represented as a tool of exclusion and tyranny.
More than half of younger people have never heard of the King James Bible, a survey shows.
Fifty-one per cent of under-35s did not know what the Authorised Version was, compared with 28 per cent of over-55s.
The Authorised King James Version, which will be 400 years old next year, took the English language around the world and is thought to be the biggest-selling book ever.
The draft recommendations of the president’s commission on deficit reduction call for closing popular tax deductions, higher gas taxes and other revenue raisers to drive tax collections up to 21% of GDP from the historical norm of about 18.5%. Another plan, proposed last week by commission member and former Congressional Budget Office director Alice Rivlin, would impose a 6.5% national sales tax on consumers.
The claim here, echoed by endless purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington, is that these added revenues””potentially a half-trillion dollars a year””will be used to reduce the $8 trillion to $10 trillion deficits in the coming decade. If history is any guide, however, that won’t happen. Instead, Congress will simply spend the money.
In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.
No effective AIDS prevention strategy can ignore the role of condoms – or the role of behavior change that is often related to religion. Both are necessary because human beings are neither angels nor beasts, as Christian theology would attest. People need institutions that oppose the banalization of sexuality, as well as institutions that recognize and accommodate the realities of sexuality and disease.
During a visit to South Africa, I asked a very conservative Christian pastor engaged in an HIV/AIDS ministry how he views the condom issue. “When I’m dealing with 10- and 12-year-old girls,” he answered, “I tell them to respect themselves and delay sex. When I’m dealing with sex workers, I give them condoms, because their lives are at stake.”
The best AIDS prevention programs are idealistic about human potential and realistic about human nature. This seems to be where the pope is heading. Given his unquestioned standing as a theological conservative, perhaps only he could make the trip.
Should the church take a major role in the Big Society?
Bishop of Leicester the Right Reverend Tim Stevens and author Cole Moreton discuss the relationship between the church and the state.
Homosexual couples could be allowed to register their civil partnerships in traditional religious ceremonies under reforms currently being considered by ministers.
Liberal Anglicans are likely to press for civil partnership registrations to be held in churches, according to William Fittall, secretary general of the Church of England’s parliament, the General Synod.
Speaking ahead of Tuesday’s inauguration of the newly elected Synod by the Queen, Mr Fittall said: “The gay issue will not go away.”
After a special service at Westminster Abbey later, the Queen is to open the Church of England’s General Synod.
The synod gets the honour of a royal inauguration because this is the established, state church and the Queen is its supreme governor.
The synod – the Church’s legislative body – is the only institution outside parliament that can make laws, even if it does have to get its decisions approved by a special parliamentary committee.
Maybe money can’t buy happiness. But can it buy friendliness?
Columbia University is hoping it can. The Office of Residential Programs at the university, sensing that its campus had grown too introverted, this week has tried to encourage casual interactions among students with a game, called “The Social Experiment,” aimed at getting campus strangers to talk to each other. The winner gets $500.
Here’s how it works: Each day of the week all students on campus are given a random word as a prompt. A subset of students is assigned to keep one of several passwords, which they disclose to any student who addresses them with the prompt word. At the end of the week, the person who has collected the most passwords wins the cash. The idea is that in the process of foraging for passwords, seekers will be forced to interact with fellow students whom they do not know.
New York Episcopalians will begin a year-long process to pick a new religious leader after the diocese’s two highest-ranking priests announced plans to step down earlier this month.
The Episcopal Church””the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion””has about 66,000 members in the New York diocese, which covers Manhattan, the Bronx and several upstate counties including Westchester. While overshadowed by the larger, more influential Roman Catholic Church, the diocese boasts a long history and landmarks like Trinity Church, which stands at the foot of Wall Street, and the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, a giant gothic-style cathedral on the Upper West Side.
The Rt. Rev. Mark Sisk, who has served as bishop of New York for the past decade, called for a special election to pick his successor at the diocese’s annual convention Nov. 13. The election, slated for October 2011, doesn’t require the 68-year-old Rt. Rev. Sisk, to immediately depart. He could continue to serve alongside the winner for as long as three years.
We’ve become numb to the obscenity of a religious holiday being dragged out for months as a marketing strategy. Year after year, Christmas becomes more of an orgy of materialism and a bow to the bottom line.
Christ threw the money changers out of the temple; today, he might have a tougher time throwing the retailers out of his own birthday party.
Many of us celebrate Christmas despite all this, not because of it.
Amidst this trend, Thanksgiving is in danger of becoming overwhelmed, of being turned into a one day football-and-turkey diversion from Christmas commerce. What was once a prelude to a season of goodwill is becoming a mere day of rest before Black Friday.
In established democracies, the Internet has become a powerful political tool used for mobilizing, fundraising and advertising. The Internet has taken on an important but different role in emerging democracies, such as Malaysia, where its use has been essential in breaking a half-century old monopoly on power by the ruling coalition.
When mainstream media will not or cannot cover important political stories, many Malaysians click toward Malaysiakini, or Malaysia Now, the nation’s most popular news website.
The site attracts 300,000 visitors a day to its text and video content in English, Bahasa, Chinese and Tamil. The languages reflect the main ethnic groups of Malaysia’s 28 million people: roughly 54 percent ethnic Malays, 24 percent ethnic Chinese and 7 percent ethnic Indians.
North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells onto a South Korean island on Tuesday, killing one person, setting homes ablaze and triggering an exchange of fire as the South’s military went on top alert.
In what appeared to be one of the most serious border incidents since the 1950-53 war, South Korean troops fired back with cannon, the government convened in an underground war room and “multiple” air force jets scrambled.
The firing came after North Korea’s disclosure of an apparently operational uranium enrichment programme — a second potential way of building a nuclear bomb — which is causing serious alarm for the United States and its allies.
Almighty God, who didst choose thy servant Clement of Rome to recall the Church in Corinth to obedience and stability: Grant that thy Church may be grounded and settled in thy truth by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and may evermore be kept blameless in thy service; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.
Almighty and everlasting God, in whom we live and move and have our being: Grant unto us such purity of heart and strength of purpose that no selfish passion may hinder us from knowing thy will, and no weakness from doing it; but in thy light may we see light, and in thy service find perfect freedom; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
–Uppingham School Prayers
According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
–1 Corinthians 3:10-11