An inclusive Hell

Posted on by
3

Jean-Paul Sartre reckoned that hell is other people. In The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis’s Episcopal Ghost, who delights in conversation as long as we are free to interpret words in our own way, is eager to return to the hell in which he doesn’t believe in order to present a paper to Hell’s Theological Society. Dante’s understanding of Hell, even though it precedes the former interpretations, is quite in tune with our zeitgeist: it is diverse and inclusive. Today’s clerics would feel quite at home there.

From, of all places, the BBC:

Hell is diverse
The modern cartoon image of Hell, with flames and pitchforks for everyone, is tragically bland compared with medieval depictions. This modern version is probably the legacy of Milton, who in Paradise Lost describes hell as “one great furnace” whose flames offer “no light, but rather darkness visible”. Then again, he is setting it in the time of Adam and Eve when its only population is demons, so even his Hell might have livened up a bit later. In the medieval hell explored by Dante and painted by Hieronymus Bosch, punishments are as varied as sin itself, each one shaped to fit the sin punished. In Dante, sewers of discord are cut to pieces, those who take their own lives are condemned to live as mere trees, flatterers swim in a stream of excrement, and a traitor spends eternity having his head eaten by the man he betrayed. In Bosch, one man has a harp strung through his flesh while another is forced to marry a pig in a nun’s wimple, and other people are excreted by monsters. This Hell is not a fixed penalty, but the fruition of bad choices made during our lives

Impecunious seniors

Posted on by
3

From here:

One in eight retired Britons still have a mortgage to pay off, with an average loan burden of nearly £50,000, a report revealed yesterday.
It estimates around 1.6million over the age of 55 who have retired have a mortgage. Some owe more than £100,000, the study said.

And not all of these senior citizens have upset a bishop.

Church of England Newspaper: Cana­dian Bishop takes ac­tion against a trou­ble­some blog­ger

Posted on by
8

From this Sunday’s Church of England Newspaper. It’s subscription only, so I can’t post a link. I have removed a paragraph containing a description of a couple of the items in dispute:

The Church of England Newspaper
12 May, 2013

Cana­dian Bishop takes ac­tion against a trou­ble­some blog­ger

THE BISHOP of the Dio­cese of Ni­a­gara in the Angli­can Church of Canada has filed a law­suit against con­ser­va­tive blog­ger claim­ing “defama­tion of char­ac­ter”.

On 19 Fe­bru­ary David Jenk­ins, au­thor of the Angli­can Samiz­dat blog re­ceived no­tice that Bishop Bird had asked a court to shut down his blog, ban him from mak­ing fur­ther com­ments about him and to pay him $400,000 in dam­ages.

Mr Jenk­ins stated that he had been sur­prised by the law­suit. “Con­trary to what one might ex­pect in such cir­cum­stances, I did not re­ceive a cease and de­sist let­ter in ad­vance of the suit.”

The State­ment of Claim filed with the On­tario Su­pe­rior Court Jus­tice al­leged Mr Jenk­ins ma­li­ciously and falsely stated Bishop Bird was a “weak and in­ef­fec­tual leader and that his ac­tions were mo­ti­vated by avarice or fi­nan­cial gain”. He also claimed that the bishop was a “thief” and had a “sex­ual fetish”, and that he was an “athe­ist and heretic bent upon the de­struc­tion of Chris­tian­ity.”

[….]

The 31 posts cited in the com­plaint were sub­se­quently re­moved from his web­site. At the bishop’s re­quest other posts were also tak­ing down, Mr Jenk­ins noted, “as a ges­ture of good faith.”

“I have made of­fers to set­tle and meet/talk, but they have been re­jected,” he added.

Smoke forces reporters out of White House

Posted on by
20

From here:

Reporters and photographers were evacuated from the West Wing of the White House early Saturday because of smoke from a faulty piece of equipment.

Reporters would not normally flee at the sight of smoke emanating from the White House, but this was different: the smoke was not accompanied by mirrors.

Babies begin to learn language in the womb

Posted on by
1

New research has demonstrated that babies begin to learn language while still in the womb. That makes what a BBC article calls a “foetus” – although later there is a slipup and reference is made to “babies” – a person, a defenceless person,  a defenceless person whose life should be protected by the law:

Now researchers in the US and Sweden have found evidence that we start learning language before we’re even born.

The study discovered that in the last 10 weeks of pregnancy, foetuses are listening to their mothers communicate. And when they are born, they can show what they’ve heard.

This does little to make Canada’s lack of protection for the unborn any less shameful or Stephen Harper’s refusal to even discuss it any less deplorable:

Conservative backbenchers are pushing to reopen the abortion debate, despite public assurances by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that the issue is settled.

More than 20 Conservative MPs and senators appeared at an anti-abortion rally on Parliament Hill on Thursday. Among them was Mark Warawa, the MP whose push for a vote on sex-selective abortion – and the right to simply raise the issue in the House of Commons – led other backbenchers to complain publicly they were being silenced by the Prime Minister’s Office.

[…..]

The abortion issue leaves Mr. Harper with a dilemma. Asked for comment, his office declined to address the MPs’ statements but said the issue won’t be reopened.

March for Life: where are the Anglican clergy?

Posted on by
81

If you care to follow this twitter feed, you will glean some insight into what groups will be represented in today’s March for Life in Ottawa. A quick perusal reveals: CampgnLifeCoalition, MomsAgainstAbortion, Catholic Canada, Women of Grace, Right to Life, Archdiocese of TO, and even Liberal4life, not to mention Pro-Life Humanists.

Notable by its absence is a contingent of clergy from the Anglican Church of Canada; it can’t be an aversion to marches brought on, perhaps, by an outbreak of debilitating corns, since so many ACoC clergy are only too keen to march in the Toronto Pride Parade. The fact is, the Anglican Church of Canada is mysteriously silent on the issue of abortion. The church that tirelessly trumpets its commitment to prophetic social justice making is too fearful to take a stand on the sanctity of an unborn baby’s life; after all, it could be viewed as controversial.

Before you ask, no I’m not there, either; my excuse is I have a lawsuit to pay for.

Bishops meet to discuss reconciliation

Posted on by
19

Read it all here:

The fourth consultation among Canadian, American and African bishops took place in Cape Town South Africa from Thursday May 2nd to Sunday May 5th 2013. We met in the context of worship, prayer, Scripture reading and the breaking of bread.  Through the presentation of papers, continuing conversation, and growing relationships we engaged in dialogue both in sessions and over meals.

[….]

We recognized that we have inherited the ministry of reconciliation from our Lord Jesus Christ; that God’s mission is not a human achievement. It is something we are called to live into and to share. We observed that the engagement in the ministry of reconciliation is a costly process because it involves facing positive and negative truths about others and about ourselves with courage, honesty and humility.

What a lovely sentiment. Note the Canadian bishops in attendance:

The Rt. Rev’d Michael Bird — Diocese of Niagara, Canada
The Rt. Rev’d Jane Alexander — Diocese of Edmonton, Canada
The Rt. Rev’d John Chapman — Diocese of Ottawa Canada
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Ingham — Diocese of New Westminster, Canada
The Most Rev’d Colin Johnson — Diocese of Toronto & Metropolitan of Ontario
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Oulton — Diocese of Ontario, Canada
The Rt. Rev’d Mark MacDonald — National Indigenous Anglican Bishop, Canada

Polygamous plastic marriage

Posted on by
60

With impeccable logic, Slate points out that, if marriage is good for same-sex couples, it should be good for a polygamous ménage, too.

As the Slate article notes, when it comes to redefining marriage, we’re not done yet.

I feel slightly sorry for both TEC and the ACoC: they struggle mightily to keep up with the foibles and fashions of the culture in which they are so pleased to be immersed, yet they are still fumbling with the, by now, passé blessing of same sex couples. Where is the generous pastoral response for polygamists, where are the polyamorous clergy proudly coming out to be consecrated as bishops in bullet proof vests, where are the Big Love or Die movies? Very disappointing.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

[…..]

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.