today I walked right along the beach from one side to the other.
the strong winds didnt make it easier.
Saturday 26 February 2011
Friday 25 February 2011
a speech by Gordon Brown
Published in the tablet this week: a speech that Mr Brown made at Lambeth Palace at the behest of Rowan Williams. It is a very methodical and clearly argued analysis of the place of faith in politics. . . . .
quotes:
re: the danger of politicians taking a higher moral ground.
"we cannot claim that God is on our side: the most we can do is hope that we are on God's side."
"Faith doesn't mean that you are without sin, it means recognising you are loved in spite of your sin. Moreover this interpretation of faith - as a lived consciousness of your failings - should remind us of that simple biblical injunction, we should judge not, lest we be judged and found wanting."
re: not being able to speak about his faith
"If the values that matters most are spoken least and you become what the great philosopher Michael Sandel calls ‘the unencumbered self', then you bring less than your truest, your fullest, your most human self into the space you share with other human beings."
and I particularly love this one:
"If I had made the caveat that it is wrong for my party to co-opt or claim God for partisan purposes, they'd have had fun with ‘Brown admits God's probably a Tory'. More likely we'd have seen it go the opposite way ‘PM rams Calvinism down England's throat' or - who am I kidding? - more likely it would have been ‘glum Gordon rams scotch Calvinism down England's throat'.
. . . . . .so he really does have a sense of humour!
Joking aside, this passage is particularly impressive I think:
"Indeed when Christians say: ‘do to others what you would have them do to you'; when Muslims say: ‘no one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself'; when Jews say ‘what is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man'; when Hindus say ‘this is the sum of duty do naught unto other which would cause pain if done to you'; when Sikhs say ‘treat others as you would be treated yourself'; when Buddhists say ‘hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful'; there is a common ground of religious belief that that we not only cooperate out of need but that there is a human need to cooperate. . . . . .
. . . . . I admire Deitrich Bonheoffer not least for calling for ‘a non-religious language for the gospel not because the distinctive claims of the gospel must be muted and ultimately lost in the face of public secularism, but because the gospel makes so large a claim that it cannot be reduced to a 'tribal' speech, understood only by an inner circle.'"
That last sentence is really worth reading several times over.
I admire Deitrich Bonheoffer not least for calling for ‘a non-religious language for the gospel not because the distinctive claims of the gospel must be muted and ultimately lost in the face of public secularism, but because the gospel makes so large a claim that it cannot be reduced to a 'tribal' speech, understood only by an inner circle.'"
Friday 18 February 2011
This is an article in today's online version of the Tablet. It is so refreshing to hear dissenting voices from inside the Catholic Church. Needless to say, I am totally in agreement and it may well be that many inside the Vatican are too.
The reason that it isn't all as simple as that becomes clear when one surveys the carnage that follows every meeting of the Anglican synod. It isn't just about Europe. The Catholic church in America strikes me as fairly right-wing and one presumes that it is the same in Africa too.
Unity has to come first and if this means that progress is infinitessimally slow then so be it.
I suppose the fundamental need for unity is what keeps me calling myself Roman Catholic although I have always been something of a borderline case and many would not consider me Catholic at all.
Whatever my own views may be I have learnt that they are nothing - and my own understanding is nothing - in comparison to the truth that is - which isnt at all to admit that the Catholic Church is the sole purveyor of that truth, far from it. I think overall though that it gets priorities more or less right on enough fundamental issues for me to continue calling myself one.
The reason that it isn't all as simple as that becomes clear when one surveys the carnage that follows every meeting of the Anglican synod. It isn't just about Europe. The Catholic church in America strikes me as fairly right-wing and one presumes that it is the same in Africa too.
Unity has to come first and if this means that progress is infinitessimally slow then so be it.
I suppose the fundamental need for unity is what keeps me calling myself Roman Catholic although I have always been something of a borderline case and many would not consider me Catholic at all.
Whatever my own views may be I have learnt that they are nothing - and my own understanding is nothing - in comparison to the truth that is - which isnt at all to admit that the Catholic Church is the sole purveyor of that truth, far from it. I think overall though that it gets priorities more or less right on enough fundamental issues for me to continue calling myself one.
On 3 February 2011, 143 theologians from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland signed a statement calling for a "Year of Departure" - for structural reforms in the Catholic Church in the wake of the sex abuse scandals. The number of signatories has since risen to 224. The statement is below.
The Church in 2011: A necessary departure
It is over a year since cases of sexual abuse of children and youth by priests and religious at the Canisius School in Berlin were made public. Thereupon followed a year that plunged the Catholic Church in Germany into an unequaled crisis. Today, a split image is projected. Much has been undertaken to do justice to the victims, to come to terms with the wrong done, and to search out the causes of abuse, cover-up, and double standards within the Church's own ranks. Many responsible Christians, women and men, in office and unofficially, have come to realize, after their initial disgust, that deep-reaching reforms are necessary. The appeal for an open dialogue on structures of power and communication, the form of official church offices, and the participation of the faithful in taking responsibility for morality and sexuality have aroused expectations, but also fears. This might be the last chance for departure from paralysis and resignation.
Will this chance be missed by sitting out or minimizing the crisis? Not everyone is threatened by the unrest of an open dialogue without taboos - especially since the papal visit [to Germany] will soon take place. The alternative simply cannot be accepted: the "rest of the dead" because the last hopes have been destroyed.
The deep crisis of our Church demands that we address even those problems which, at first glance, do not have anything directly to do with the abuse scandal and its decades-long cover-up. As theology professors, women and men, we can keep silence no longer. We consider ourselves responsible for contributing to a true new beginning: 2011 must be a Year of Departure for the Church. In the past year, more Christians than ever before have withdrawn from the Catholic Church. They have officially terminated their legal membership, or they have privatized their spiritual life in order to protect it from the institution. The Church must understand these signs and pull itself from ossified structures in order to recover new vitality and credibility.
The renewal of church structures will succeed, not with anxious withdrawal from society, but only with the courage for self-criticism and the acceptance of critical impulses - including those from the outside. This is one of the lessons of the last year: the abuse crisis would not have been dealt with so decisively without the critical accompaniment of the larger public. Only through open communication can the Church win back trust. The Church will become credible when only its image of itself is not removed so far from the image others have of the Church. We turn to all those who have not yet given up hope for a new beginning in the Church and who work for this. We build upon the signals of departure and dialogue which some bishops have given in recent months in speeches, homilies, and interviews.
The Church does not exist for its own sake. The church has the mission to announce the liberating and loving God of Jesus Christ to all people. The Church can do this only when it is itself a place and a credible witness of the good news of the Gospel. The Church's speaking and acting, its rules and structures - its entire engagement with people within and outside the Church - is under the standard of acknowledging and promoting the freedom of people as God's creation. Absolute respect for every person, regard for freedom of conscience, commitment to justice and rights, solidarity with the poor and oppressed: these are the theological foundational standards which arise from the Church's obligation to the Gospel. Through these, love of God and neighbor become tangible.
Finding our orientation in the biblical Good News implies a differentiated relationship to modern society. When it comes to acknowledgement of each person's freedom, maturity, and responsibility, modern society surpasses the Church in many respects. As the Second Vatican Council emphasized, the Church can learn from this. In other respects, critique of modern society from the spirit of the Gospel is indispensable, as when people are judged only by their productivity, when mutual solidarity disintegrates, or when the dignity of the person is violated.
This holds true in every case: the Good News of the Gospel is the standard for a credible Church, for its action and its presence in society. The concrete demands which the Church must face are by no means new. And yet, we see hardly any trace of reform-oriented reforms. Open dialogue on these questions must take place in the following spheres of action.
1. Structures of Participation: In all areas of church life, participation of the faithful is a touchstone for the credibility of the Good News of the Gospel. According to the old legal principle "What applies to all should be decided by all," more synodal structures are needed at all levels of the Church. The faithful should be involved in the naming of important officials (bishop, pastor). Whatever can be decided locally should be decided there. Decisions must be transparent.
2. Community: Christian communities should be places where people share spiritual and material goods with one another. But community life is eroding presently. Under the pressure of the priesthood shortage, larger and larger administrative entities (Size "Extra Large" Parishes) are constructed in which neighborliness and sense of belonging can hardly be experienced anymore. Historical identity and built-up social networks are given up. Priests are "overheated" and burn out. The faithful stay away when they are not trusted to share responsibility and to participate in democratic structures in the leadership of their communities. Church office must serve the life of communities - not the other way around. The Church also needs married priests and women in church ministry.
3. Legal culture: Acknowledgement of the dignity and freedom of every person is shown when conflicts are borne fairly and with mutual respect. Canon law deserves its name only when the faithful can truly make use of their rights. It is urgent that the protection of rights and legal culture be improved. A first step is the development of administrative justice in the Church.
4. Freedom of Conscience: Respect for individual conscience means placing trust in people's ability to make decisions and carry responsibility. It is the task of the Church to support this capability. The Church must not revert to paternalism. Serious work needs to be done especially in the realm of personal life decisions and individual manners of life. The Church's esteem for marriage and unmarried forms of life goes without saying. But this does not require that we exclude people who responsibly live out love, faithfulness, and mutual care in same-sex partnerships or in a remarriage after divorce.
5. Reconciliation: Solidarity with "sinners" presupposes that we take seriously the sin within our own ranks. Self-justified moral rigorism ill befits the Church. The Church cannot preach reconciliation with God if it does not create by its own actions the conditions for reconciliation with those before whom the Church is guilty: by violence, by withholding rights, by turning the biblical Good News into a rigorous morality without mercy.
6. Worship: The liturgy lives from the active participation of all the faithful. Experiences and forms of expression of the present day must have their place. Worship services must not become frozen in traditionalism. Cultural diversity enriches liturgical life, but the tendency toward centralised uniformity is in tension with this. Only when the celebration of faith takes account of concrete life situations will the Church's message reach people.
The already-begun dialogue process in the Church can lead to liberation and departure when all participants are ready to take up the pressing questions. We must lead the Church out of its crippling preoccupation with itself through a free and fair exchange of arguments and solutions. The tempest of the last year must not be followed by restful quietness! In the present situation, this could only be the "rest of the dead." Anxiety has never been a good counselor in times of crisis. Female and male Christians are compelled by the Gospel to look to the future with courage, and walk on water like Peter as Jesus said to him, "Why do you have fear? Is your faith so weak?"
The Church in 2011: A necessary departure
It is over a year since cases of sexual abuse of children and youth by priests and religious at the Canisius School in Berlin were made public. Thereupon followed a year that plunged the Catholic Church in Germany into an unequaled crisis. Today, a split image is projected. Much has been undertaken to do justice to the victims, to come to terms with the wrong done, and to search out the causes of abuse, cover-up, and double standards within the Church's own ranks. Many responsible Christians, women and men, in office and unofficially, have come to realize, after their initial disgust, that deep-reaching reforms are necessary. The appeal for an open dialogue on structures of power and communication, the form of official church offices, and the participation of the faithful in taking responsibility for morality and sexuality have aroused expectations, but also fears. This might be the last chance for departure from paralysis and resignation.
Will this chance be missed by sitting out or minimizing the crisis? Not everyone is threatened by the unrest of an open dialogue without taboos - especially since the papal visit [to Germany] will soon take place. The alternative simply cannot be accepted: the "rest of the dead" because the last hopes have been destroyed.
The deep crisis of our Church demands that we address even those problems which, at first glance, do not have anything directly to do with the abuse scandal and its decades-long cover-up. As theology professors, women and men, we can keep silence no longer. We consider ourselves responsible for contributing to a true new beginning: 2011 must be a Year of Departure for the Church. In the past year, more Christians than ever before have withdrawn from the Catholic Church. They have officially terminated their legal membership, or they have privatized their spiritual life in order to protect it from the institution. The Church must understand these signs and pull itself from ossified structures in order to recover new vitality and credibility.
The renewal of church structures will succeed, not with anxious withdrawal from society, but only with the courage for self-criticism and the acceptance of critical impulses - including those from the outside. This is one of the lessons of the last year: the abuse crisis would not have been dealt with so decisively without the critical accompaniment of the larger public. Only through open communication can the Church win back trust. The Church will become credible when only its image of itself is not removed so far from the image others have of the Church. We turn to all those who have not yet given up hope for a new beginning in the Church and who work for this. We build upon the signals of departure and dialogue which some bishops have given in recent months in speeches, homilies, and interviews.
The Church does not exist for its own sake. The church has the mission to announce the liberating and loving God of Jesus Christ to all people. The Church can do this only when it is itself a place and a credible witness of the good news of the Gospel. The Church's speaking and acting, its rules and structures - its entire engagement with people within and outside the Church - is under the standard of acknowledging and promoting the freedom of people as God's creation. Absolute respect for every person, regard for freedom of conscience, commitment to justice and rights, solidarity with the poor and oppressed: these are the theological foundational standards which arise from the Church's obligation to the Gospel. Through these, love of God and neighbor become tangible.
Finding our orientation in the biblical Good News implies a differentiated relationship to modern society. When it comes to acknowledgement of each person's freedom, maturity, and responsibility, modern society surpasses the Church in many respects. As the Second Vatican Council emphasized, the Church can learn from this. In other respects, critique of modern society from the spirit of the Gospel is indispensable, as when people are judged only by their productivity, when mutual solidarity disintegrates, or when the dignity of the person is violated.
This holds true in every case: the Good News of the Gospel is the standard for a credible Church, for its action and its presence in society. The concrete demands which the Church must face are by no means new. And yet, we see hardly any trace of reform-oriented reforms. Open dialogue on these questions must take place in the following spheres of action.
1. Structures of Participation: In all areas of church life, participation of the faithful is a touchstone for the credibility of the Good News of the Gospel. According to the old legal principle "What applies to all should be decided by all," more synodal structures are needed at all levels of the Church. The faithful should be involved in the naming of important officials (bishop, pastor). Whatever can be decided locally should be decided there. Decisions must be transparent.
2. Community: Christian communities should be places where people share spiritual and material goods with one another. But community life is eroding presently. Under the pressure of the priesthood shortage, larger and larger administrative entities (Size "Extra Large" Parishes) are constructed in which neighborliness and sense of belonging can hardly be experienced anymore. Historical identity and built-up social networks are given up. Priests are "overheated" and burn out. The faithful stay away when they are not trusted to share responsibility and to participate in democratic structures in the leadership of their communities. Church office must serve the life of communities - not the other way around. The Church also needs married priests and women in church ministry.
3. Legal culture: Acknowledgement of the dignity and freedom of every person is shown when conflicts are borne fairly and with mutual respect. Canon law deserves its name only when the faithful can truly make use of their rights. It is urgent that the protection of rights and legal culture be improved. A first step is the development of administrative justice in the Church.
4. Freedom of Conscience: Respect for individual conscience means placing trust in people's ability to make decisions and carry responsibility. It is the task of the Church to support this capability. The Church must not revert to paternalism. Serious work needs to be done especially in the realm of personal life decisions and individual manners of life. The Church's esteem for marriage and unmarried forms of life goes without saying. But this does not require that we exclude people who responsibly live out love, faithfulness, and mutual care in same-sex partnerships or in a remarriage after divorce.
5. Reconciliation: Solidarity with "sinners" presupposes that we take seriously the sin within our own ranks. Self-justified moral rigorism ill befits the Church. The Church cannot preach reconciliation with God if it does not create by its own actions the conditions for reconciliation with those before whom the Church is guilty: by violence, by withholding rights, by turning the biblical Good News into a rigorous morality without mercy.
6. Worship: The liturgy lives from the active participation of all the faithful. Experiences and forms of expression of the present day must have their place. Worship services must not become frozen in traditionalism. Cultural diversity enriches liturgical life, but the tendency toward centralised uniformity is in tension with this. Only when the celebration of faith takes account of concrete life situations will the Church's message reach people.
The already-begun dialogue process in the Church can lead to liberation and departure when all participants are ready to take up the pressing questions. We must lead the Church out of its crippling preoccupation with itself through a free and fair exchange of arguments and solutions. The tempest of the last year must not be followed by restful quietness! In the present situation, this could only be the "rest of the dead." Anxiety has never been a good counselor in times of crisis. Female and male Christians are compelled by the Gospel to look to the future with courage, and walk on water like Peter as Jesus said to him, "Why do you have fear? Is your faith so weak?"
Monday 14 February 2011
the need to be creating.
v. the need to be at prayer/
which comes first and what is the division between?
Is there one?
same source yes I think so
but it doesnt help to know that because
the activity is fundamentally different.
it is a problem I urgently need to tackle to help me
'move on through'
because it was last week's thwarting of plans (the choir) that sent me on this downward spiral.I came across a post from 22nd December:
"I have to face the fact that my prayer is simply taking me further into darkness and confusion.
the temptation is constantly to abandon it as a bad job - as I have often in the past - but this really is no longer an option. (my vows I have made.)
the question is: how much is due to my problems with the work here and how much due to other things?
I'm not expecting to be able to answer that at the moment but teaching in an unknown and complicated environment is inevitably not going to contribute to a quiet inner life.
There is also a turbulence which I find here - either in the house, or in the village itself - I can't tell which. It did occur to me (for the first time) during psalms this morning that perhaps I should look for somewhere 'quieter' to live. (not quieter in the 'noisy' sense, but quieter in a more inward sense.) or maybe this inner noise is actually all mine (within me) and something I could not leave behind simply by moving."
This is certainly still completely relevant.
Things cannot continue as they are.
I must do something somehow.
Sunday 6 February 2011
just not enough prayer this week.
lazy and self-indulgent.
endlessly missing opportunities.
and yet tonight:
certainty.
finished the Cromwell biography.
I think I learnt something about him, but, since it was trying to rebalance a negative bias from other books which I havent read I'm not sure it wasn't too biased the other way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)