Last week, while attending the state funeral of former Governor General Roméo LeBlanc, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was administered Communion. The funeral and eucharistic rites were those of the Roman Catholic Church. Prime Minister Harper is an evangelical protestant.
(For non-Commonwealth readers, Canada is a monarchy. However, we share our monarch with a bunch of other countries and she normally resides in a nice palace in London. A Governor General represents the Queen for official purposes in each of the Commonwealth monarchies, which also include Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and several others. When HM travels, someone is temporarily deputed to play a similar role in the UK while she's out of the country.)
Yes, it's against the rules for a non Roman Catholic to take Communion in a Roman Catholic mass. (Rome's rules, I note. While some protestant denominations may have rules about receiving the sacrament in other denominations, I don't know that the PM's Alliance Church does.)
Of course, the biggest problem in the event was that the incident was captured on amateur video and it APPEARS that the PM slipped the consecrated host into his pocket.
Frankly, a slanging match about the rules is simply silly. Arch-Romanists apart, whatever happened was clearly rooted in interdenominational misunderstanding and there is no reason to presume any mischievous intent. The priest should have realized the PM was not a Roman Catholic and shouldn't have offered the host. The PM should have politely declined. Nobody wanted to be seen as making a scene. It was a mistake.
The amount of newsprint, airtime and bandwwidth wasted on this story is a trifle bizarre.
More disturbing is the tone of some of the commentary.
Many "progressives" have used the event as an excuse to let loose a stream of vitriol mocking the Roman Catholic Church and their doctrine about the presence of Jesus in the elements of the Eucharist. Of course, it isn't just our Roman friends who believe that Jesus is present in the elements of the Eucharist. Although Orthodox and Anglicans decline to define how that works, belief in the Real Presence is normative for both.
I confess, I don't quite get the point of the hatespeech. How does it build up support for the progressive cause to insult the hundreds of thousands of progressives who happen also to be people of faith?
There used to be quite a long history of anti-Catholic bigotry in Canadian politics, from he bad old days of the Orange Order in southern Ontario in the late 1800s to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan on the Prairies in the 1930s, Roman Catholics were a frequent target for hatemongering rabblerousers.
Religious bigotry played a direct role in the Saskatchewan election of 1929, including the simply bizarre accusation that a Roman Catholic priest was directing the Speaker of the Legislature on how to rule on points of procedure.
I thought those days were behind us.
Those days ought to be behind us.
Apparently they're not.
(I am sticking to my practice of refusing to link to extremist websites. This is the first time I have had to apply that rule to a website of the secular left. Most disheartening.)
Here is just one example (from "Canadian Cynic"):
If you actually want sane people to take your idiotic ritual seriously, why not have the "wafer" magically appear out of the air each time? That would be wicked cool -- the sudden appearance of the mystical biscuit in the fingers of the priest just before he places it in someone's mouth. It might even convince me to give this Catholicism thing a try.
But if wafers come, not out of thin air, but out of mixing flour and water, then baking at 350F for 20 minutes, then they're not magical representations of the body of Jesus Christ, ready to be transmogrified into His actual flesh. They're crackers.
Some years ago I read The Four Great Heresies: Nestorian, Eutychian, Apollinarian, Arian by J.W.C. Wand, sometime Bishop of London. One of the things that struck me in reading it was the way in which heresies tend to come in pairs, each one emphasizing a part of the truth in such a way as to deny another part of the truth.
Thus, if I might be permitted to oversimplify, one heretic overemphasizes the divine nature of Christ while another overemphasizes Christ's humanity, yet both lose sight of the fact that Christ is both divine and human. One heretic overemphasizes the the distinction between the three persons of the Holy Trinity while another overemphasizes their unity, yet both lose sight of the fact that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are both Three Persons and at the same time One God. The Four Great Heresies all arise from the attempts of learned folk to define the who Jesus was and how Jesus related to the Father. Nestorius, Eutyches, Apollinaris and Arius managed to bracket the truth without ever apprehending it.
The flip side of this is the reality that all theology is written in response to the heresy of the age. After all, the whole muddle over homoousion and homoiousion only began when Arius got it wrong.
So the Church, in responding to one heresy, must always have a care that she not fall into its polar opposite.
Not that I think they have a theological leg to stand on. The Presiding Bishop does attack what she describes as "the great Western heresy" (by which she clearly means the great Western heresy of the present age), but she does so without falling into the polar opposite heresy.
Dr. Jefferts Schori's words which have started this current rhetorical rhubarb? They come from her opening address to the General Convention of the Episcoapl Church currently meeting in Anaheim, California.
The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.
I think she's spot on in her identification of the Great Heresy of the present age - at least in the West. This is the root heresy that underlies far too much of political religion in both the United States and Canada. Personally, I'd name it Thatcherism, for it's great advocate, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who once proclaimed "there is no such thing as society." (Woman's Own magazine, October 31, 1987)
Historically, Catholic Christianity has always seen the collective expression of the Body of Christ - that is to say the Church - as important. While never denying the importance of individual faith, individual devotion and individual piety, a Christian is properly a Christian because they are part of Christ's Body, the Church. To treat Christian faith as being an entirely individual undertaking - as seems altogether too common in some circles - is manifestly heretical. The Ethiopian eunuch came to believe as an individual, but it was baptism by Philip which grafted him into the Church. The lot fell on Matthias as an individual, but his Apostolic authority came from being "added to the eleven Apostles."
Now, I agree that there is, as always, a polar opposite heresy - the heresy that would emphasize the collective to the exclusion, diminution and discarding of the individual. That heresy might take many forms, but it would certainly be a heresy.
However, I fail to see that Dr. Jefferts Schori has come anywhere near offering up an alternate extremism to the rampant individualism of the present age.
The irony, of course, is that the TUSTDACs with all their assorted acronyms (ACNA, ACN, ANiC, GAFCON, FOCA, FCAUK and cetera) are damning Dr. Jefferts Schori and defending the very heresy of individualism. What's ironic about that? The emphasis of the individual over the collective, philosophically, is called liberalism, while the TUSDACs wrongly think of themselves as conservatives.
Now, for those of you who want to contemplate a bit of heresy hunting:
Some fellow I've never heard of, Eugene Peterson, wrote a book in 1987 called Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity. My online friend the Bishop of Buckingham, Alan Wilson, quoted the book on his blog, and then my online friend Tim Chesterton posted the same quote on his blog.
I'm not going to post the whole quote - just the part I found particularly striking.
The biblical fact is that there are no successful churches. There are, instead, communities of sinners, gathered before God week after week in towns and villages all over the world. The Holy Spirit gathers them and does his work in them. In these communities of sinners, one of the sinners is called pastor and given a designated responsibility in the community. The pastor’s responsibility is to keep the community attentive to God...
Wow.
I've said before that statistics only tell you what they tell you and that's all they tell you. Thus statistics about average Sunday attendance or giving by members do tell you something about the vitality of a congregation. But what they're telling isn't always clear. And even when it's clear, it may not be important.
If only we could find some discrete statistical way to quantify the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a community and in the lives of individuals.
When I was working on the Ryan Meili leadershipcampaign, we saw how effective Web 2.0 can be in spreading a message, in generating support and even in raising money.
Web 2.0, for the uninitiated, is the idea that internet communication is not just the one way transmission of information via a website. Properly used, the internet enables the building of community and fully interactive communication. Social networking via sites like Facebook is one of the more recent means by which community or campaign building throws off the usual constraints.
We see another example of this in some local Saskatchewan politics.
Regina lawyer Noah Evanchuk, who was Regina co-chair of the Meili campaign, has not yet made any public announcement about his intent to run for the NDP nomination in the Palliser constituency. There isn't even a noah4palliser.ca website - at least not yet - though the url exists and currently redirects to Noah's professional website.
But there is a Noah Evanchuk Facebook page. And without any formal campaign, without any website to redirect, it has managed to garner (as of this writing) 162 supporters. That's just Noah's friends (Facebook and real life) using their existing networks.
Similarly, the people behind the Barack Obama website (now restyled as Organizing for America) are using an email / social networking hybrid pitch to get supporters of Obama's heath care proposals to call their Congressfolk and Senators. The email makes the case, and then provides phone numbers for the appropriate elected officials. Of course, once the initial recipient forwards the email, that data may no longer be correct. No matter. The email helpfully embeds a link to a search engine that uses the person's address to generate the correct list. And it includes another page where the person can report back on how it went when they did call.
Of course, Web 2.0 isn't all opportunity. There are more than a few pitfalls. Among those who've been stung over the past couple of days, we have United Airlines, AT&T, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (twice) and the usual gang of far right extremists who are trying to destroy the Anglican Communion.
First, United Airlines. Dave Carroll had some issues with United. Here is the story in his own words.
In the spring of 2008, Sons of Maxwell were traveling to Nebraska for a one-week tour and my Taylor guitar was witnessed being thrown by United Airlines baggage handlers in Chicago. I discovered later that the $3500 guitar was severely damaged. They didnt deny the experience occurred but for nine months the various people I communicated with put the responsibility for dealing with the damage on everyone other than themselves and finally said they would do nothing to compensate me for my loss. So I promised the last person to finally say no to compensation (Ms. Irlweg) that I would write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed online by anyone in the world. United: Song 1 is the first of those songs. United: Song 2 has been written and video production is underway. United: Song 3 is coming. I promise.
Here is Song 1 - United Breaks Guitars
I'd seen the story online, but it hit CNN today (though I can't find a link). After nearly 150,000 views, United have finally decided to do something about Dave's guitar. According to the CNN story, the company has called this a learning experience - and plan to use the video as part of their employee training.
Compare that delayed response to the actions of a quick thinking WestJet employee. When a young bride arrived in Victoria, BC a few hours before her wedding, she was understandably distraught when her wedding dress had missed a connection somewhere. Once the employee of western Canada's regional carrier had tracked down the dress but determined it wouldn't get to Victoria on time, she simply took the bride downtown and bought her a new $2,280 wedding dress - on her personal credit card. She was that confident the company would do the right thing and reimburse her - which they did. Of course, there's less Web 2.0 buzz when a company goes over the top to do the right thing - but lot's of buzz when the company stupidly plays the villain.
Mythbuster Adam Savage was savaged by the giant telecom AT&T, who felt that "a few hours of websurfing in Canada" should cost him about US$11,000. Savage made use of his Twitter account (and his minor celebrity status) to protest the ridiculous overcharge. With more than 50,000 followers on his Twitter account, Savage proved himself a trustbuster as well as a mythbuster, and AT&T resolved the issue.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been bitten twice in the past 48 hours by stories which would never had legs before Web 2.0.
First, he took communion at the funeral of former Governor General Roméo LeBlanc. Not a big deal, you'd think. But the funeral was a Roman Catholic mass - and Stephen Harper is an evangelical protestant. Now, even that wouldn't have been so bad. Another former GG, Adrienne Clarkson, an Anglican, once received at a Roman mass. There was criticism, but at least she had the sense to put the host into her mouth - right away. Harper appeared to put it in his pocket. While the Clarkson event got some coverage, the Harper faux pas has gotten far more. In the great scheme of things, not a major issue, but it is a headache the Prime Minister's Office would not have had even ten years ago. Here's the video.
The PMO's other headache has to do with the decision to grant tourism funding to support Toronto's Pride Week festival last week. In an interview with the extremist site LifeSiteNews (I do not link to extremist websites as a matter of principle), obscure Saskatchewan Tory backbencher Brad Trost launched a personal attack against Tory Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy. That wouldn't be so bad - except that the government has now stripped Ablonczy of the grant program. Most of Harper's time leading the party has been focussed on containing the extremists. But with Web 2.0, it isn't possible for the PM to hide the fact that he's actually pandering to them.
A few years ago, comments about what HM the Queen may or may not have said in private correspondence wouldn't likely get much coverage. But in the age of Web 2.0 some deliberate misrepresentations by the usual suspects have proven embarrassing for the extremist moves to destroy the Anglican Communion.
The Reverend Canon Doctor Chris Sugden (no, he really insists on piling on his titles like that) tried to claim that a letter from Mrs. Battenberg constituted an endorsement of the extremist agenda of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans - conveniently leaving out the paragraph where HM (or actually one of her staff) makes it clear that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England does not interfere in the day to day affairs of the established Church of England, nor does she endorse a particular agenda on controversial issues. It was pretty unambiguous, the way her staffer said it:
I should explain however that the Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would not intervene in the day-to-day running of the Church of England. Although you have already sent a copy of your letter to him, I have, nevertheless, been directed to forward your letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury so that he may be aware of your approach to Her Majesty from this office.
The best media comment on this is The Telegraph's religion editor George Pilcher. After describing how Mr. Sugden has been implying Mrs. Battenberg supports his extremist views, Pilcher goes on to say:
“Sources close to the Palace”, as they say, have coughed lightly and raised an eyebrow to one another. That’s a courtier’s equivalent of being incandescent with rage. Because Her Majesty said no such thing.
Ten years ago, it's unlikely Chris's idle ravings would have gotten quite the exposure outside of his own schismatic circles. Instead, he and his are exposed as . . . let's call them "dissemblers" since "liars" is so harsh.
Web 2.0 is a marvellous tool that can build things up. It can also be a marvellous tool to trip up the foolish.
I've been hanging my biretta in the same place for nearly 30 months now. St. James the Apostle is a small but lively parish which has come to embrace a new sense of mission as the last Anglican parish in north Regina. It has been and continues to be a joy to work and worship with them.
It is the nature of interim ministry that it is interregnal. I am not here nor was I called to be here as anything more than the Interim Priest. (So much nicer than the now thankfully discarded phrase "Priest in Charge.") My appointment was originally scheduled to be a matter of months and has been extended several times - and most recently extended without a specific end date, but rather until the appointment of a permanent incumbent is effected.
Now, I knew all that. Even so, I've mixed feelings since the official call went out for candidates who would consider becoming the next incumbent of St. James the Apostle, Regina.
I would encourage any of my ordained readers, wherever they may be, to check out the posting here. I'll even allow as the ad gives an honest reflection of what the parish is really like - at least as I have experienced it. And I'll admit to a mischievous sense of satisfaction that an unreconstructed lefty like me actually proposed the adjective "entrepreneurial" to describe the desired next incumbent.
We learned on the Meili campaign how effective social networks can be in spreading a message wider. So I'd ask any of you who know a priest who is entrepreneurial, innovative, a team player and a skilled communicator to pass it on.
God has plenty of work to do in north Regina.
(For the record, I don't actually have a biretta.)
The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, not known for being a particularly leftwing rag, has published a scathing condemnation of a proposal to allow Saskatchewan marriage commissioners to refuse to solemnize same sex marriages. When a centre right paper like the SP refers to a rightwing government's policy as "reprehensible" and effectively brands the minister of a rightwing government a coward, it becomes apparent just how wrongheaded the policy is.
For my non-Canadian readers (and for Canadians who may have spent the last five years on a desert island with no access to the news), let me explain that equal marriage has been the law in Canada for quite sometime by an act of the Canadian Parliament. It has been law in Saskatchewan somewhat longer by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
For most everyone reading, let me also explain that marriage commissioners are agents of the state and only agents of the state. While they hold the same license as a clergyperson to solemnize marriages, they do not in any way act as agent for any religious body. In fact, the office of marriage commissioner was created precisely so that couples in Saskatchewan could have a wholly secular marriage ceremony.
This is manifestly not an issue of religious freedom.
Churches and other religious institutions, quite properly, are permitted to apply their own canonical requirements to any intended marriage. Thus no clergyperson is obliged to solemnize the marriage of any couple whose situation does not conform to canon law. A Baptist pastor can refuse to marry a same sex couple. A Roman priest can refuse to marry a couple where the husband is divorced from a woman still living. An Anglican priest can refuse to marry a couple whose relationship falls within the prohibited degrees (ie, a man marrying his deceased wife's sister). While they act as agents of the state, they are principally agents of their religious institution, and should that change, their capacity to solemnize marriages is automatically revoked by the province.
Marriage commissioners are civil servants. Like any other civil servant, they are obliged to apply the laws, regulations and policies of the province. Religious convictions are, in this matter, irrelevant. If they cannot comply with the law, there is nothing which compels them to become marriage commissioners. (Indeed, if they are governed by such religious scruple, isn't it counterintuitive for them to participate in a system specifically designed to provide for a non-religious means to solemnize a marriage?)
Now, as a matter of reasonableness, there might have been a case for creating a temporary exemption for those who were already marriage commissioners when the law changed. That is to say, the small number of existing marriage commissioners who scrupled at same sex marriage could have been grandfathered -provided that they assisted any same sex couple to find another marriage commissioner - but that the exemption would not extend to any new marriage commissioners. Existing marriage commissioners had no legal entitlement to that situation, and the previous government chose not to extend it to them.
Apart from being reprehensible and cowardly, what the Saskatchewan Party government proposes in patently absurd. It is analagous to saying that pacifists should be allowed to serve in the military but, should the balloon ever go up, they wouldn't have to put themselves in harms way so long as another soldier could be found to put his or her life at risk. I have a great deal of respect for pacifists. Most of them understand that they shouldn't be in the military, and so long as the state does not compel them to military service, the system works.
The SP editorial makes some other comparisons to show just how odious this proposal is:
Would the minister go to bat for a social conservative who objects, justified on grounds of "traditional values" or religion, to wed a mixed-race couple? How about a Hindu doctor who refuses to treat a person he believes to be of a lower caste?
. . .
Surely Mr. Morgan wouldn't be asking the court if it's legally acceptable for a government manager to refuse to hire a First Nation worker based purely on her race, as long as he is able to identify another manager at a Crown corporation who's willing to hire her?
If this were about race or caste or even religion, even Don Morgan would be able to recognize this for what it is. Instead of being the Minister of Justice for all the people of Saskatchewan, he has chosen to pander to hatred. Words like "reprehensible" and "coward" are barely sufficient.
Comments here do not represent the official views of my parish, my diocese, my bishop or the Anglican Church of Canada. Neither do they purport to represent the official views of God. They are merely the views of this particular opinionated prairie priest - who hopes that his views on issues are generally consonant with God's views, but claims no certainty on that score.
"[T]he Covenant is not an essential element to maintain or strengthen our Communion; on the contrary, it risks defacing it." - Brazilian House of Bishops
