Episcopal Diocese of San Diego: Task force to study holiness in relationships

Okay, here's a little stone bridge in the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego that is almost gone, but worth defending if anyone is interested in submitting their name for this task force (this resolution was passed at the most recent diocesan convention in February of this year):

Task Force to Study Holiness in Relationships

If you are interested, you may submit your name to be considered for the Bishop's task force to study holiness in relationships. Please email Bobbi Hoff, Executive Assistant to the Bishop: bobbi303@edsd.org.

RESOLUTION 08-09
Title: A Resolution Urging the Bishop to Form a Task Force to Study Holiness in Relationships and Blessings in Churches of the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego.

Be It Resolved that the Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego is urged to appoint a theologically diverse Task Force of clergy and lay people reflective of the Diocese, to study Holiness in Relationships and Blessings in Churches of this Diocese from the perspectives of holy scripture, church history and tradition; practical, pastoral and sacramental theology; and the movement of the Holy Spirit; and then prepare an academic paper on the subject to be presented to the 2009 Convention of the Diocese of San Diego, with additional recommendations as that Task Force might deem appropriate.
Be it Further Resolved, in advance of the presentation at convention, workshops be promoted throughout the diocese to engage congregations in this work and mission.

EXPLANATION OF RESOLUTION:
Whereas much of the conflict in the Episcopal Church concerns the issue of holiness in relationships, and
Whereas the Order for Marriage found in the Book of Common Prayer states that Christian marriage is between a man and a woman, and
Whereas, there are persons in the Episcopal Church (gay and lesbian, seniors and others constrained by financial concerns) who are in committed, monogamous relationships who wish to have their relationships blessed in the church by a clergy person, and
Whereas there are persons in the church, who because of their understanding of scripture and what constitutes a faithful life are opposed to such blessings occurring in the church, and
Whereas liturgical practices surrounding the blessing of unions are not consistent throughout the greater church, and
Whereas the House of Bishops in their September 25, 2007 response to “questions and concerns raised by our Anglican Communion partners,” noted that the 1998 Lambeth Conference called on provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a “listening process” designed to bring all Anglicans fully into the Church’s conversation about human sexuality and holy relationships, and
Whereas engaging in such a listening process is a fundamental step before engaging in any action on the matter.

SanDiegoAnglicans has info on the California Marriage Protection Act

Check out SanDiegoAnglicans.com for links to sites on the California Marriage Protection Act and how to register your opinion on the recent court decision with Gov. Schwarzenegger.

Tactics explained at Fr. Jake's

I always get tactics and strategy confused, so I may be using the wrong term in the headline. But whichever it is, it's happening now!

From the Rev. Susan Russell over at Fr. Jake's on justifying All Saints move to start performing same-sex weddings [boldface mine]:

Although it's certainly debatable, reading Canon 17:5 in conversation with Canon 18:1 we believe that the spirit of those canons transcends the letter of the language describing marriage as a union between a man and a woman in Canon 18:2b. And we'll be suggesting fixing that in Anaheim.

It's arguable that the 1976 approval of the ordination of women wouldn't have happened without 1974 and Philadelpia pushing the church to amend the canons to reflect the reality there WERE women who were priests. I'll argue it's the same here ... and that the church needs to amend the canons to reflect the reality that there are same-sex couples who are MARRRIED.

But remember, Bishop Bruno knows nothing about any of this! But Susan Russell+ has that covered as well:

+Jon's letter to the clergy said ...

I remind you that pastoral acts are personal decisions between clergy and members of your congregation.

... which is why we don't have to ask for "permission" for blessings -- which have been happening at All Saints Church for over 15 years -- and where we'll stand when we start marrying gay couples on June 16th.

First Things: The politics of bioethics

Okay, so I'm just a little behind in my reading. From First Things (November 2007), I like this definition by Richard John Neuhaus [boldface mine]:

. . . A human being is a ­person possessed of a dignity we are obliged to respect at every point of development, debilitation, or decline by virtue of being created in the image and likeness of God. Endowed with the spiritual principle of the soul, with reason and with free will, the destiny of the person who acts in accord with moral conscience in obedience to the truth is nothing less than eternal union with God. This is the dignity of the human person that is to be respected, defended, and indeed revered. . .

Read it all.

Abortion as a (im)moral choice [Updated]

UPDATE: While Hosea6:6 (see below) offers the one of the best intellectual comments against abortion, Paula Loughlin presents the best reason (spiritual, emotional, and grounded in the realities of what a girl might face) to actively speak out against those who present abortion as a viable alternative condoned by the church:

Right now there is a girl who considers herself a Christian. She attends church, she believes the Bible and recites the creeds with all sincerity. She may even be active in her youth group and trys her best to witness the love of Christ to all.

But she like so many of us thought she was ready to have sex. Maybe she is planning on marrying the boy. Maybe she fell victime to a moment of temptation. It might have happened once or many times. But she had sex and she is now pregnant.

The church she attends does not talk much about sex or pregnancy or birth or abortion. The pastor and youth leaders trust the half hour of Sunday school and the hour of Tuesday night youth group have given the girl and others all they need to make a good moral decision. They let it be known that sex should be saved for marriage but that pretty much all they let be known.

Now she is pregnant. She prays and prays about what to do. Because she does want to live her life as a Christian she decides to find out what churches teach about abortion. Whether it can ever be a moral choice which not only is not wrong but will glorify God and bring her closer to Him. If she belongs to any mainstream Protestant denomination she will soon find that abortion though viewed as a imperfect choice remains a valid one in any number of circumstances. The circumstances range from being a threat to the life and health of the mother or needing to complete one’s education. Still the girl has doubts but decides to speak with someone at a local abortion clinic. There she meets with a spiritual counselor. A clergy man or woman who is a from the very same denomination as the girl. Told all the Christian reasons why an abortion is the best choice for her she makes the appointment.

Then the feet in the stirrups, the pinch of the needle, the numbness, the sound of the vacuum, the tugging and cramping and the invasion. That awful invasion. A glass of juice, a rest, a prescription and an aftercare sheet. No baths, no douche, no sex. Call 911 if you start bleeding heavily. Have a friend drive you home.

It is only then she discovers that the church she trusted to lead her into Truth, has lied. That the serpent has left the garden and is in the rectory.

Original Post: From an ordained cleric writing for RH Reality Check (via Stand Firm) [boldface mine]:

. . . At another point, a few years later, I did have an abortion. I was a single mother, working and pursuing a path to ordination in the Episcopal Church. The potential father was not someone I would have married; he would have been no better a candidate for fatherhood than my daughter's absent father. The timing was wrong, the man was wrong, and I easily, though not happily, made the decision to terminate the pregnancy.

I have not the slightest regret about either of these decisions, nor the slightest guilt. I felt sorrow and loss at the time of my abortion, but less so than when I'd miscarried some years earlier. Both of my choices, I believe, were right for me and my circumstances: morally correct in their context, practical, and fruitful in their outcomes.

That is, both choices were choices for life: in the first instance, I chose for the life of the unborn child; in the second, I chose for my own vocational life, my economic stability, and my mental and emotional health and wholeness.

Shortly after my ordination to the priesthood, I was asked to speak at the National Abortion Federation's annual meeting, on a Clergy Panel, with the theme of "Abortion as a Moral Choice." I wondered skeptically who would attend such a panel, but to my surprise, the room was packed with people - abortion providers and other clinic workers. Our audience was so eager and grateful to hear their work affirmed, to hear religious authorities assuring them that God was on their side! I understood that I had a responsibility, indeed, a call, as a pro-choice religious professional, to speak out and to advocate publicly for women's reproductive rights and health, and I have tried to be faithful to that call.

To talk theologically about women's right to choose is to talk about justice, equality, health and wholeness, and respect for the full humanity and autonomy of every woman. Typically, as moral theologians, we discuss the value of potential life (the fetus) as against the value of lived life - the mature and relational life of a woman deciding her capacity to continue or terminate a pregnancy. And we believe that, in general, the value of that actual life outweighs the value of the potential. . .

The author of this piece is associated with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) (and no, I'm not linking to their site). Having read through the RCRC website, I know that they do promote the idea that deciding to abort one's child is blessed by God. And in one of their justification papers, the author describes having an abortion as "self-defense" for a woman.

I think the best comment at Stand Firm is from Hosea6:6 [boldface mine]:

Let me get this straight, the author made a free will decision to engage in sexual activity with a man who she was not married, did not plan to marry and was not a good candidate to be a good husband or father, as a result from this evening’s “entertainment” was an undesired new life with unique DNA, an unintended externality.

Individual Rights - Since this new life, a daughter, has unique DNA, it is not a part of the woman’s body. Since this is a developmental stage of reproduction of humanity, it is incorrect to claim the same status as virus or other pathogen with unique DNA. The desirability has no impact on the right, as loathsome speech is still protected. Therefore this mothers choice violated her daughters right to be born as she had been and every other adult was given the chance.

Distributive Justice—If mom had been given life the daughter should be given life.

Utilitarian—Utility must be on the whole good not the good of a specific individual. While the mother and father certainly benefit from the mothers decision to forgo any responsibility of killing the child and rationalizes using a utility argument, she abuses the theory for the utility of the good of the daughter is not counted, neither of the benefit to society this life could contribute or the happiness of her future husband or the contribution of grandchildren after but purely focuses on the mother’s tangible prosperity which is an improper use of this theory.

Hmmm ... her moral choice seems to fail by three secular theories, in fact two outright make claim for her action to be an immoral action.

I think this author needs a good Catholic school education (where I was taught logical ethics to a level that seems more emphasized then my Protestant schooled friends), for theological heritage of thinking about ethics and moral goods. I was reminded by of this a weekend ago listening to a Catholic lawyer go through result of unintended evil by a good act (thus mitigating the former) or the good resulting from an evil act (thus negating the former), but this is evil result from an evil act.

----

Pure Christan ethics are much simpler and she still fails Thy shall not murder.

Also that bit forbidding of sacrificing a child to the god of prosperity (which is actually what this is at it’s root, child sacrifice for the offering of prosperity - I bet this priest never thought of it that way but her own words in this article betray her to prove that’s exactly what she did and thought, but a new nifty name mane child sacrifice acceptable).

First Things: The Politics of Bioethics

An excerpt (subscription) from Richard John Neuhaus's article on "The Politics of Bioethics" in the November issue of First Things where he discusses the concept of "human dignity" [italics his; boldface mine]:

. . . In general, our political life is not heavily burdened by theory, or at least not by the explication of theory. That is because knowing and judging the good things of human life is not so burdened.

In the realm of bioethics, however, and specifically with respect to the dignity of the human person, such explication is sometimes required. An obvious example is abortion and the many issues inseparably tied to abortion. The most consequential political event of the past half-century in the United States was the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions of January 1973. Numerous political analysts have described how those decisions have dramatically reconfigured the nation’s cultural and political life. And, of course, those decisions are intimately tied to many other hot-button issues in bioethics. As an act of “raw judicial power” (as Justice Byron White called it in his dissent), Roe removed a preeminently political, which is to say moral, question from public deliberation. The abortion decisions were a profoundly anti-political act and are accurately described as instances of the judicial usurpation of politics. By attempting to remove the question from public debate, the Court turned it into something very much like the vortex of American politics.

The moral question is not, as the court majority claimed, about when a human life begins. That is a biological and medical question on which there is no serious dispute. The moral question can be put this way: At what point in its existence ought we, and for what reasons ought we, to recognize that a human life should be protected in law?

On this issue, if no other, Peter Singer has it right. As the noted Princeton advocate of infanticide said in a June 20, 2005, letter to the New York Times rebuking Mario Cuomo for his confused thinking about abortion: “The crucial moral question is not when human life begins, but when human life reaches the point at which it merits protection. . . . Unless we separate these two questions—when does life begin, and when does it merit protection?—we are unlikely to achieve any clarity about the moral status of embryos.”

That moral question is also and unavoidably a political question. One might make the case that it is the most fundamental of political questions. If politics is deliberating how we ought to order our life together, there can hardly be a more basic question than this: Who belongs to the we? Although ostensibly removing it from politics, the abortion decisions forced into the political arena an issue that was thought to have been settled in the centuries of civilizational tradition of which our polity is part. Namely, that it is morally wrong and rightly made unlawful to deliberately kill unborn children.

If a principle is established by which some indisputably human lives do not warrant the protections traditionally associated with the dignity of the human person—because of their size, location, dependency, level of development, or burdensomeness to others—it would seem that there are numerous candidates for the application of the principle, beginning with the radically handicapped, both physically and mentally, not to mention millions of the aged and severely debilitated in our nation’s nursing homes.

It may be objected that of course we as a people are not about to embark on such a program of extermination. To think we might do so is simply bizarre. And as a culturally and politically contingent fact, that is true. But under the regime of Roe, a regime extended to embryonic stem cell research and other bioethical controversies, we have no “clear and unambiguous” agreed-on rule precluding such horrors. We do have in our constituting texts, notably in the Declaration of Independence, a commitment to natural rights, and we do have deeply entrenched in our culture and politics a concept of the dignity of the human person.

The question, then, is, Who belongs to the community for which we as a community accept responsibility, including the responsibility to protect, along with other natural rights, their right to life? This is a preeminently political question. It is not a question to be decided by bioethicists. Bioethicists, by virtue of their disciplined attention to such questions, are in a position to help inform political deliberations and decisions about these matters, but these questions are— rightly and of necessity—to be decided politically. They are rightly so decided because our constitutional order vests political sovereignty in the people, who exercise that sovereignty through prescribed means of representation. They are of necessity so decided because in this society the views of moral philosophers—whether trained as such in the academy or acting as such on the bench—are not deemed to be determinative. Witness the democratic non-ratification of the Supreme Court’s imposition of the unlimited abortion license.

To say that such decisions are rightly decided politically is not to say that the resulting decisions will always be morally right. Those who disagree with the decisions that are made must make their case in the political arena. . .

Sorry, the current month is subscription only - so subscribe!

"We're trying to create a new value system for life"

From the Guardian (U.K.), although it's happening here in San Diego:

Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth.

The announcement, which is expected within weeks and could come as early as Monday at the annual meeting of his scientific institute in San Diego, California, will herald a giant leap forward in the development of designer genomes. It is certain to provoke heated debate about the ethics of creating new species and could unlock the door to new energy sources and techniques to combat global warming.

Mr Venter told the Guardian he thought this landmark would be "a very important philosophical step in the history of our species. We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before".

The Guardian can reveal that a team of 20 top scientists assembled by Mr Venter, led by the Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, has already constructed a synthetic chromosome, a feat of virtuoso bio-engineering never previously achieved. Using lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched together a chromosome that is 381 genes long and contains 580,000 base pairs of genetic code.

The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome, which the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been watermarked with inks for easy recognition.

It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form. The team of scientists has already successfully transplanted the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another, effectively changing the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100% confident" the same technique would work for the artificially created chromosome. . .

. . . "We are not afraid to take on things that are important just because they stimulate thinking," [Mr. Venter] said. "We are dealing in big ideas. We are trying to create a new value system for life. When dealing at this scale, you can't expect everybody to be happy."

Read it all.

Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student

Thanks to Judith L for pointing me to a new book, Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student by Miriam Grossman, M.D. I haven't read this yet, but plan to as soon as possible. Excerpts from the author's website:

. . . I am here to tell you that radical politics pervades healthcare, and common sense has vanished. Who's paying the highest price? Girls and women.

Not long ago, we physicians could call casual sexual activity "mindless" and "empty." Before political correctness muzzled us in the '90s, a therapist might advise her client that it is love and life-long fidelity that bring liberated sensuality and provide the best insurance against infectious diseases. An unwanted pregnancy, an abortion—these were weighty issues.

We understood that men and women are profoundly different, and weren't afraid to say so. It was clear that liaisons outside a committed relationship could be hazardous. A sexually transmitted infection was a serious matter. Traditional marriage and parenthood were valued milestones. Self-restraint built character, and character was something to strive for. To search for meaning and to make sacrifices for a higher purpose were noble endeavors defining our humanity.

Things have changed. Teens are encouraged to explore and experiment with their sexuality. Self-discipline has been replaced with latex and Plan B. There is tacit approval of promiscuity, and an STI is a rite of passage. Abortion? It's likened to a tonsillectomy.

The health care system has declared war on tobacco and alcohol, tanning salons and transfats, but is silent about the hazards of our hook-up culture. Women's health focuses on preventing pregnancy, but fails to warn that motherhood cannot be delayed indefinitely. Traditional marriage with a mother and father is just one option among others, all equally valid.

Devoted professionals, motivated by altruism, are foisting these agendas on young people. I witness the ramifications daily.

Risky behaviors are a personal choice. Judgments are prohibited—they might offend. Millions of teens have painful, worrisome genital infections—for the rest of their lives. Girls in high school are anxious, not about acne, but about cervical cancer. Women complete their PhDs at 35, and realize the hardest challenge lies ahead: getting their Mrs., and becoming an Mo.M.

The health benefits of church attendance are never discussed. Instead, a past president of the American Psychological Association declares organized religion a major source of social injustice. That organization is also worried about what I think and how I speak. They advise me to avoid thinking of men and women as "opposites," because the term suggests "polarization."

I cannot do my job, my patients are suffering, and I am fed up. . .

Read it all. Also, h/t to The Dawn Patrol.

Dr. Miriam Grossman will be on C-SPAN's BookTV Sunday, 9/9, at 9:15 a.m. and Monday morning at 1:00 a.m., reading the last chapter of her book and taking questions. The event was taped last month at the National Press Club.

Threat to take new-born over emotional abuse

From the Telegraph (U.K.) :

A pregnant woman has been told that her baby will be taken from her at birth because she is deemed capable of "emotional abuse", even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way.

Social services' recommendation that the baby should be taken from Fran Lyon, a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.

Hexham children's services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.

Under the plan, a doctor will hand the newborn to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. Social services' request for an emergency protection order - these are usually granted - will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.

From then on, anyone discussing the case, including Miss Lyon, will be deemed to be in contempt of the court.

Miss Lyon, from Hexham, who is five months pregnant, is seeking a judicial review of the decision about Molly, as she calls her baby. She described it as "barbaric and draconian", and said it was "scandalous" that social services had not accepted submissions supporting her case.

"The paediatrician has never met me," she said. "He is not a psychiatrist and cannot possibly make assertions about my current or future mental health. Yet his letter was the only one considered in the case conference on August 16 which lasted just 10 minutes."

Northumberland County Council insists that two highly experienced doctors - another consultant paediatrician and a medical consultant - attended the case conference.

The case adds to growing concern, highlighted in a series of articles in The Sunday Telegraph, over a huge rise in the number of babies under a year old being taken from parents. The figure was 2,000 last year, three times the number 10 years ago.

Critics say councils are taking more babies from parents to help them meet adoption "targets". . .

And a throw-away line at the end of the story:

A recording of social workers threatening to take a newborn into care has been removed from the YouTube website after Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire started legal action, claiming the Data Protection Act was breached.

Vanessa Brookes, 34, taped social workers telling her and her husband that they would seek to place the baby, due next month, in care, while admitting there was "no immediate risk to the child."

H/t to Relapsed Catholic.

Read it all. Somehow, I can't help but think that the abortion and birth-control culture has contributed to children as commodities, as well as increased fertility difficulties, thereby necessitating "adoption targets."

As school year starts, McGreevey heads to seminary

From newsday.com:

The nation's first openly gay governor is headed back to school Tuesday _ as a seminary student.

Jim McGreevey will begin full-time studies at General Theological Seminary of the Episcopal Church in Manhattan, seminary spokesman Bruce Parker confirmed. McGreevey switched his religious affiliation from Roman Catholic to Episcopalian earlier this year and expressed interest in pursuing a call to ministry.

As a student in the non-degree program at the seminary, McGreevey has up to a year to choose a course of study. In the meantime, he can choose a broad array of courses in theology, liturgy, ministry and related topics that are available to students who are unsure of their educational and vocational goals, Parker said. . .

. . . Religion has become an issue is his contentious divorce proceedings. His estranged wife, Dina Matos McGreevey, has demanded that their daughter not be allowed to receive communion in the Episcopal Church because she is being raised a Roman Catholic.

Asked about her estranged husband enrolling in divinity school, Matos McGreevey laughed.

"In order to be a leader, whether it's a leader of a state, a nation or a church, you need to have some sort of moral compass and I don't think he does. It's unfortunate," she said Friday. "I certainly wouldn't look to him for guidance or advice or as a role model."

Growing up in Middlesex County, McGreevey served as an altar boy and attended Catholic schools. While in office, he continued to practice the religion, but differed from church teachings in several areas, including his support of abortion rights. . .

Read it all.

Second part of Mario Bergner’s contribution to the Listening Process at Stand Firm

Part two of Mario Bergner’s Contribution to the Listening Process is now posted at Stand Firm:

Our most commonly asked question at Redeemed Lives is, ‘How can I help someone who is struggling with homosexuality?' My first response is to ask a few questions: ‘Is the person struggling a Christian? Has he or she been baptized, regenerated and converted in Jesus Christ?' If the answer is, ‘No, they are not a Christian', then the primary need is not to address their homosexuality, but to introduce them to the Great Physician himself, Jesus . The message of the Gospel is not, ‘Jesus loves you and wants to change your homosexuality.' It is John 3:16, ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.' . . .

In the many years that we have been in existence we have cared for some people who after coming to us for help returned to self-identifying as gay or to embrace other passions of the sinful nature. How did we fail them?

Our early failures at helping people with same-sex attraction were due in part to inexperience. . .

Still, even with all these requirements met, there have been a relatively small number of people who have returned to homosexuality, or embraced other life-controlling conditions of the sinful nature. We have always kept open the doors of love to them. . .

Read it all.

Dean supports genetic manipulation

This to me is very scary thinking, from anyone, epecially a clergyman. Not that there are easy answers, but from the tone of the article, Dean Bay seems to regard it as an intellectual exercise, not a spiritual decision with far-reaching consequences. From the New Zealand Herald:

Auckland's new Anglican dean, Ross Bay, wants the church to embrace genetic engineering to cure disabilities such as Down syndrome - but he draws the line at parents deciding they don't want a baby with red hair. . .

He supports parents' right to abort a fetus that was diagnosed with a disability such as spina bifida and said the same principle should apply to new techniques that might knock out the genes for conditions such as Down syndrome.

"But what about the child born with red hair? What do we say about the ethics of [influencing] that?" he said. "Those are the two extremes. There's going to be a lot in the middle. Intelligence? I don't know that I know the answer but I'm interested."[Editorial comment: what's he interested in - other people's thinking? the teaching of the Church? what the majority of people would do?]

He said the church's role was to help people to think about the issues, but it did not want to lay down the law. "Gone are the days when most people in the church want to impose an ethic on people," he said.

When couples asked him about whether to abort a child diagnosed with spina bifida, he did not tell them what to do. "It's a pretty tough decision for parents to make when faced with that information about the quality of life [of their prospective child]," he said.

"I'd hate to be a decision-maker. I wouldn't want to condemn people in those situations making a decision about abortion. "I'm certainly not pro-abortion but I think there are situations where it's a necessary option, perhaps for health reasons."

Read it all.

Sign the TEC Legal Transparency petition

From the American Anglican Council, a statement on requesting information from ECUSA on how various lawsuits are being funded:

The Episcopal Church's (TEC) continued litigation against parishes and vestries is a great concern to many in the Anglican Communion. These lawsuits come at a high price emotionally, spiritually, and financially. Of special concern is the source of TEC’s funding. Where are they getting the money to sue these churches? Should TEC be open about the amount spent and the source of their litigation funding?

Sign it here.

H/t to Stand Firm.

More on the Diocese of Virginia election and irregularities

From the Friday, Jul 20, 2007 issue of The Church of England Newspaper via BabyBlueOnline, a report by George Conger on charges of canon irregularities by 815 on the Diocese of Virginia election:

The Presiding Bishop’s office admitted that it acquiesced in the Diocese of Virginia’s violation of the express language of Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons in the consecration process of its new bishop, but stated the violation was customary and not of sufficient merit to call into question the validity of the Episcopal consecration of Bishop Shannon T Johnston of Virginia. . .

Earlier this year, Bishop Schori nullified the election of Mark Lawrence as Bishop of South Carolina, tossing out ballots from dioceses in favour of his election for not being in strict conformance to the requirement that the ballots be signed by all members of a diocese’s standing committee, thereby depriving him of a majority necessary for consent to his election.

South Carolina initially sought to use the “short form” to solicit the consents of Bishop- elect Lawrence, but was cautioned by the Presiding Bishop’s office to use the proper language found in the canons so as not to violate the canons. The permissive stance taken towards Virginia while South Carolina was required to conform to the letter of the law, over the same issue within a period of two months by the Presiding Bishop’s office, prompted San Joaquin’s charges of hypocrisy and double standards.

The Diocese of Virginia declined to respond. However, observers in Virginia note that the diocese’s claims that the Virginia-based CANA Bishop Martyn Minns has irregular episcopal orders, would appear to be undercut, given the admitted defect in the consecration process of its bishop-coadjutor. . .

Read it all.

More on Virginia Consent Form Debacle

Although according to 815, it's not a debacle - it's called doing business as usual, apparently.

Updates at TitusOneNine, Stand Firm (here and here), Diocese of South Carolina, Diocese of Virginia, The Living Church, and the incomparable commentary of Chris Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal [peace and blessings be upon it and him].

"From Pro-Choice to Pro-Life"

If you haven’t read anything by Frederica Mathewes-Green, please do! I especially recommend her essay first published in Christianity Today titled From Pro-Choice to Pro-Life. It goes to the heart of the abortion debate and offers effective tools for those talking to others about honoring life. An excerpt from that essay:

When I was writing Real Choices: Listening to Women, Looking for Alternatives to Abortion (Conciliar Press, 1997), I spent a year studying the problems of pregnancy, seeking to discover the reasons most women choose abortion. I expected to find practical problems heading the list: financial needs, child-care woes, pressure to drop out of school. Yet after reviewing several studies and conducting my own, no clear pattern emerged.

But when I spoke with groups of postabortion women, a nearly unanimous consensus appeared. Women had abortions, in nearly every case, because of relationships. Most often it was to please the father of the child, who was pressuring for abortion. (In a couple of cases, the woman spoke of lying on the abortion table praying her husband would burst in and say, "Stop, I changed my mind!") The second most common reason was pressure from a parent, most often the girl’s mother.

In the vast majority of cases, I found a woman is most likely to choose abortion in order to please or protect people that she cares about. Often she discovers too late that there is another person to whom she has an obligation: her own unborn child. The grief that follows abortion springs from the conviction that, in a crisis, this relationship was fatally betrayed. [boldface mine]

Read it all.
(Photo credit: Mary Taber-Lind)

Mercy killing bill defeated

Good news from Great Britain, where the House of Lords has defeated what they called a "mercy killing" bill. (hat tip to Kendall Harmon)

Based on how that idea has been implemented in Holland ("right to die" rapidly becoming "duty to die"), I think this can only be a good thing.