Fix it for Jesus

Here's a nice story from London's Daily Telegraph about Christian car mechanics in middle America.

It's refreshing to see an English paper actually treat Christian America with some respect and admiration.

It connects with a piece I wrote some time ago for InsideCatholic about the practical benefits of public prayer. You can read it here.

Rosary Retreat

Next weekend (17 - 19 July) I will be in Vandalia, Illinois with John LaBriola leading a retreat on my book Praying the Rosary for Inner Healing. This retreat is organized by the lay community Our Sorrowful Mother's Ministry.

If you are in the Chicago, Indianapolis, St Louis area please try to come. More information here.

Vacation

There will be minimal blogging over the next week. Family Longenecker are going on an American road tour. All of us on motorcycles to visit the Big Apple.

Well, not the motorcycle bit, but we are going to NYC.

I'll probably blog on the journey where I have WiFi. 

Have a good summer y'all!

Authority 5

If such a religious authority were discoverable, what other traits would it have, and how would this infallible authority be exercised?

The Catholic answer is that the Catholic Church teaches infallibly because she is divinely inspired, and this divine inspiration began at St Peter's confession of Jesus as Lord.  At that point Jesus not only said, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." He also said, "Blessed are you, Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father in heaven." This divinely given revelation was not only for that one confession of faith, but it illustrates Peter's role within the divine economy from then on, because Jesus prophesies that on this dynamic relationship with God that he will found his church." Christ, therefore, builds his church, not just on Peter, and not just on his confession of faith. Both are true. It is more than that. He builds his church on this new, divine/human relationship of which Peter (and by implication his successors) is the foundation and the mouthpiece.

The Catechism teaches that it is Christ who is infallible, and he grants a measure of his infallibility to his body the Church. This infallibility is simply the assurance that what the Catholic Church teaches in the matter of faith and morals is without error. This infallibility is a gift to the whole Church, and it is exercised through the ministry of the apostles who were specifically commissioned by Christ to teach and preach the truth. From the earliest time that ministry was considered to be passed on to their successors by the laying on of hands, and the apostolic ministry continues in the lives and ministries of the Catholic bishops today.

This infallibility is expressed not just in 'ex cathedra' statements by popes, but by the whole ordinary magisterium of the church. There is a kind of 'assumed infallibility' that is to say, that whatever the church teaches is without error. However, there is a hierarchy of truth and particular dogmas and moral teachings of the church carry more weight than other lesser teachings, disciplines and opinions of the hierarchy.

The Pope's role in all of this is that he is the focus and head of the church's ministry in every way, and therefore he is also the focus of the church's gift of infallibility. In harmony with the rest of the whole church, he may pronounce and teach with the gift of infallibility. He may, at times, exercise this gift when the teaching is consonant with Scripture and tradition even when many in the church disagree with his position.

Thus the gift of infallibility, which enjoys the traits I have outlined, is exercised in the Catholic Church. Some have asked me to comment on how these traits are lacking in other traditions. I don't think this is my task. I wish to explain and expound on the Catholic Church's teachings.

If the other Christian traditions are lacking in these traits of authority, I leave the reader to think it through and draw his own conclusions.

Authority 4

When considering the traits of an infallible authority there are three other sets of paired qualities that balance one another, and which are necessary.

First, the Church that speaks with authority must be invisible. In other words, there must be a quality to it which is spiritual and God given and greater than any visible boundaries. This invisible quality means, for instance, that the true members of the church are not defined and specified. The members of this church and the truth she teaches must be 'known to God alone.'

However, a Church that is only invisible is not satisfactory. We also have to be able to identify this church in history and at the present time. This is why the Catholic church teaches that Christ's church 'subsists' within the Catholic Church. If you want to find Christ's true church, it is the Catholic Church, but we realize that the true Church is also greater than the visible church.

The authority we are looking for also has to both human and divine. If it is to be infallible, then the church, as an institution, must be divinely inspired and founded by divine action, for it cannot be infallible if it is merely a human institution. However, for this authority to be real and to be active in the world, it must also be incarnated in a human institution. 

The final pair of qualities, which goes along with the divine inspiration of the Church, is that this infallible authority must be grounded and fully integrated with Holy Scripture, and the divine inspiration of the Church itself must be discovered in Scripture. If anything is important for man's salvation (and therefore necessary to be revealed in Scripture) then it is this: for without this foundation the rest of revelation remains subject to private interpretation.

On the other hand, this authority must not be founded only on Scripture as some sort of blind commitment to an arbitrary religious text. The authority must also be congruent with human reason and compatible with the rest of a reasonable perception of reality. The authority grounded in, and stated in Scripture must also make sense, and the understanding of Scripture itself and its inspiration must be credible and consistent with human reason. If this pair of traits is applicable to the authority itself, then they must also be applicable to the teaching which that authority promulgates. In other words, the what that authority teaches must also be congruent with Scripture and human reason.

When we examine these traits we discover that there is really only one church that has the audacity to claim them all. What other church claims that it's foundation is by God in Christ himself? None. All others claim, at best, that they share in the apostolic foundation by virtue of apostolic succession, but none claim to be the one church that is founded by Christ on the apostle Peter, and continued to the present day.

It is necessary for every Christian, therefore, to confront these claims and make of them what he will. The old knock down argument can be applied: either Catholics are bad, mad or their claims for this authority are true. That is to say, the Catholic Church, which makes such a claim must be bad for we are lying and we know it, and we wish to deceive as many as possible, or we are mad: we believe something that cannot be true, and even if we are honestly and sincerely mistaken, this too is a form of madness, for we live our lives committed to an unreal proposition.

The other option is that the historic claims for the authority of the Catholic Church are what they claim to be, and as such, the Catholic Church fulfills all the traits we would look for in an infallible authority.

What this means and how this infallible authority is exercised will be the subject of tomorrow's post.

Capuchin Competition

Fr. Elvis looked on in horror as his visual aid on the text, 'take my yoke upon you' got out of control at the Life Teen Mass.

Authority 3

There are some other traits that we would look for if we were looking for an infallible authority. We've mentioned the need for it to be universal, but local and historic, but relevant. Another way of putting this is that the authority needs to be objective, but applicable to subjective needs. In other words, it must not be driven by subjective, sentimental or shifty trends and fashions. However, it must be able to be applied to the emotional, momentary and personal needs of individual people.

There are some more practical pairs of criteria which we would look for as well. This authority needs to be intellectually credible. It can't be obviously stupid. More than that, while it needn't be expert in every area of human endeavor, it does has to have credibility in every area of human intellectual endeavor. This is because such an authority (if it is a religious authority) will have contact points with every other area of human endeavor. Furthermore, it must not only be intellectually credible, but it must have the underlying intellectual tools to construct credible responses to the world.

While it is intellectually credible, this religious authority must not be an elitist group of brainy people. The authority must also speak in a way that is accessible to the ordinary person--indeed, it must unlock a religion that is accessible to the ignorant peasant and even the educationally sub normal.

Another way of seeing this same pair of criteria is through the arts and culture. This authority must inspire and help to produce the very highest achievements in arts and culture while, at the same time, being accessible to those with less educated taste.

Is there any other church which can claim to hold these two pairs together other than the Catholic Church? I think not. The Eastern Orthodox come closest of course, but because of their diffuse ethnic authority structure they do not have the means to produce quite so comprehensive and detailed an intellectual edifice as Catholicism. As for Protestantism--their intellectual edifice is broken into tiny segments, partially conceived, ill constructed and self contradictory.

Mantilla the Hon on Clergy Hats

I tell you someting. Listen. Whenever I see a priest in a hat it gives me what do you call it? Goose bumples. I get this shiver go right down my back and for the longest time I don't know why. Any other priest comes marching into mass and I maybe just yawn and flick my fan out and chase away a fly. 

Then we get this new priest in the parish and he's wearing the biretta. Wow! I give my friend Salsarita an elbow in the ribs, "Salsa, will you look at that new priest! He's wearing a biretta!" I haven't seen one these in years and it makes me think about priests in hats. I like it when a priest wears a hat, and maybe, you know, this is one of the nice things about being Catholic, that the priests put on headgear.

So many hats! So little time! There's the little beanie called a zuchetto, they come in different colors for the different rank. Any priest can wear the biretta. Three fins on a square hat and a pom on top and if you're a monsignor or a doctor in theology you can wear a red pom. A bishop and cardinal--they wear purple and red ones. I think some of the other clergy wear white and even blue. Then the saturno. Just a good hat for keeping the head warm, and the bishop wears the miter with the zuchetto underneath. You know hon, I get all excited just thinking about it.

So I start thinking you know? Why do I get goose bumples over the priest wearing a hat? I think it is because the hat makes him different. He wears the special clothes not because he's so special, (but let me tell you, I love some of our priests and they are very special people hon!) but anyway, they wear the hat because their job is special. They are set apart for a special role so they wear a special hat.

Why do people think this is strange maybe? The policeman, he wear a different hat than everybody else.  Nobody think its crazy when the graduate wears that funny flat hat with a tassle. No. That's because on that day the kid is special. The matador wears a special hat. So does the Knight of Columbus and the park ranger. 

Another thing is that the hats are traditional. It reminds you of the past. That priest wearing a biretta--he's like something out of the old days, and that makes me feel like I'm in touch with a religion that's older, and for me hon, older is better. At Salamanca when I was doing my degree in ecclesiastical haberdashery they told us. "Be suspicious of any enterprise that requires new clothes." I think you can take it further..."Be suspicious of new clothes." Same thing for hats. Older is better.

Last thing is this hon. Think about it. The hats are also just a little bit ridiculous, you know? Sometimes we Catholics are blamed for taking all this too seriously. This heretic from Germany once asked me at Salamanca, "Vhy do your priests have to wear zese silly hats?" I say to him, "They wear them because they want to, not because they have to."

He scratches his head. "But zey look absurd!" So I poke him with my fan pretty hard and say, "That's also why they wear them. Because they are absurd. Do you think our holy priests want to look all serious and sensible and self righteous and be dressed up in a suit like some lawyer or accountant? How boring is that? No our priests are more absurd than that, and also more serious." You know what I mean hon? I told him the truth, but I don't think he understood it. He was just a German studying something useless like brain surgery or how to build a better septic tank or someting.

So maybe when your priest has a birthday coming up, you go ahead and buy him a nice biretta and read up on it and tell him when he should wear it. Maybe it will not only change his head, but change his mind.

Authority 2

Faced with the inevitableness of relativity without an agreed infallible authority, what are the traits of an infallible authority that we would look for? Notice how I am developing this argument: I am not talking at this point about the authority of the Pope or even the authority of the Catholic Church. Instead, I am trying to determine first the need for an infallible authority, and now the qualities such an authority might have.

These qualities can be seen as set of paired and balanced traits. First, such an authority would need to be historical. What I mean by this, is that it is rooted in history. It wasn't invented yesterday or even a hundred years ago or five hundred years ago. Not only is it rooted in history, but it is deeply part of history. It is interwoven with historical events and therefore locked into the human experience. It is anchored in the past, and uses this historical grounding to exercise it's authority in the present. 

Balancing the fact that this authority is historical is the need for this authority to be relevant and up to date. It cannot be so rooted and grounded in history that it is unchangeable. While it is anchored in the past it has to have the facility to weigh present concerns and speak to the needs of every generation.

Another pair links with the first one. This authority needs to be both universal and local. If it is universal, it will transcend any one particular pressure group, philosophy or political agenda. If it is universal philosophically, it must also be universal geographically. In other words, it cannot be determined by the viewpoint, history and demands of one particular culture or ethnic group, tribe or national identity.

However, if it is universal, it also needs to be local. In other words, you have to be able to identify and connect with this universal authority. It needs to transcend culture, and yet be available on your local street corner. This authority needs a universal voice, but it also needs a local face. It needs to transcend all communities and ethnic groups, and yet be at the heart of all communities and nations and ethnic groups.

There are four more pairs of qualities which I will discuss in future posts, but I was asked to mention the Eastern Orthodox in my analysis. If these first two pairs of traits are, indeed, what we would look for in an infallible authority we can see that some religions have some of the traits, but not all. So the Protestant groups are very relevant and adaptable to the world they live in, but they lack the historical gravitas necessary to anchor their authority. Likewise, they are very good in the local situation, but they do not have the universal dimension which would give their authority credibility.

The Eastern Orthodox have the opposite problem. They have historical gravitas, but they are (generally speaking) ossified in their views. They find it very difficult to adapt to new cultures, and have no authority system that helps them declare a position on thorny modern moral questions that arise. Because of their ethnicity they are very good on the local, ethnic relevance, but they lack the over-arching 'big view' that can transcend their national and ethnic identities and agendas.

To put it in very general terms, the Protestants speak well to 'the needs of today' but do so without any real historical reference points. The Eastern Orthodox are wonderfully rooted in the timeless traditions of the faith, but find it difficult to adapt to the needs of the modern world. Protestants and EO speak well to their local communities and ethnic groups, but lack the capacity to universalize their authority and transcend their particular viewpoints, assumptions and needs.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is the only religious grouping which can claim to be both historical and relevant, universal and local. She is historical because her claims (rooted in historical facts) extend through the apostles to Christ and through him back through the history of the Hebrew people. At the same time, the Catholic Church proclaims authoritatively on stem cell research, climate change, the economic crisis, the moral malaise etc. 

The Catholic Church exercises a universal authority because her viewpoint considers the needs of a billion Catholics worldwide from every tribe and nation. At the same time, that universal perspective transcends philosophical viewpoints as well. He voice is not conditioned by one particular philosophy or set of assumptions. While exercising this universal voice of authority, she also speaks locally. The voice of the Church is heard in your local diocese and parish.

Stay tuned for the next installment...

Homily for Week Fourteen

Memorial Sacrifice - this week's homily continues the series on the seven sacraments. After an introduction (last week) on the sacramental way of seeing, the first homily on the Eucharist was the one for Corpus Christi. 

This week is the second of three on why we call the Mass a sacrifice and a memorial. These homilies are intended as a basic form of catechesis, recognizing that even in a parish like St Mary's there will be a good number of Catholics who were either poorly catechized or not had any catechesis for a long time.

Todd on Michael

MSM reporter and guest blogger, Todd Unctuous reveals his feelings about the passing of Michael Jackson.

I was shocked and saddened to hear of the recent death of 'the King of Pop', Michael Jackson. Certainly he was the 'Elvis of Our Times', and it is difficult to think of a person who will be more greatly mourned than this troubled entertainment genius. Some will point out that he should not have slept in the same bed with young boys, but as he said, "This was an innocent past time, and only a natural thing to do with a child you love." We must remember that he was acquitted of these terrible charges, and with great dignity and courage combined with self respect and bravery he rose above the accusations that were made against him by his accusers.

"King Michael" as he will probably soon be known, was adored by millions of people all over the world who will always remember his moonwalk, his impersonation of demon possessed people, his cute, lascivious dance routines and his memorable music. Michael was a mature man who lived life to the full, showing the American public that it was possible to spend millions on self indulgent pleasures while still feeling sorry for those who were poor. He showed the disabled how, through the wonders of plastic surgery, they could overcome a disabling skin disease and racial deformities to rise above his unfortunate looks.

A mature and caring man, Michael was the 'little boy who never grew up.' Who can forget the touching scenes when he welcomed unfortunate children to enjoy themselves as his 'Neverland Ranch.'?  This man was mature enough to know himself well enough to know that he was a perpetual Peter Pan. What a great example he gave to all when, he eventually married and became a father and a family man with three beautiful children.

I am not myself a religious man, but I respect those who do hold to a religious faith, and I know that each one of them will be lighting a candle for Michael next week. I'm with them in this moment of a long lasting outpouring of grief which will see great sadness poured out. Many are saying he was not only a great entertainer, but like the angel Michael, he was a gift from heaven itself.

Like Lady Diana, Michael Jackson was a 'candle in the wind', and perhaps that other great cultural icon, Elton John will favor us with a new rendition of that moving and inspirational hit at the upcoming memorial service.

If so, I, along with millions of Michael's fans, will shed a tear as he joins the immortal ones.

Todd Unctuous is forty two. For more information on Todd click here.

Authority 1

Some time ago an Anglican priest who reads this blog said that he disagreed with Catholicism because he could not go along with papal infallibility. He said an infallible authority other than the Bible simply wasn't necessary. I thought it warranted a post on its own, but the more I thought about it, the more it seems that it warrants a series of posts on authority in the church. I hope those who are out there who read this blog might join in and comment and pick me up where my 'thinking out loud' goes wrong.

Apart from anything else, this comment illustrates just how far most Anglicans are from being Catholic even if they continue to profess how much they are 'Catholic Anglicans' or 'Catholics in the Anglican Church.' At the fundamental level most of them are Protestant Bible Christians. Do not get me wrong, this is not to knock good Protestant Bible Christians, nor is it an attempt to knock Anglicans. It is simply a statement that clarifies a position.

The fact of the matter is, that there are really only two positions to take regarding authority in the church: 1. That you believe in an infallible authority or 2. that you do not. In the first case you believe in revealed religion. In the second, you believe in relative religion.

It is easy to think that those who believe in an infallible authority are all Catholics who believe in the Pope. However, it is not so easy as that. While Catholics do believe in an infallible authority structure, what we believe about that is not quite so easy as, "If the Pope says it that settles it." I will come to an explanation of the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility eventually, but first let's observe that there are other ways of believing in an infallible authority.

When I was a fundamentalist most of the good Christians I knew believed in an infallible church authority. It was their pastor. Now they did not hold 'pastoral infallibility' as a point of doctrine, but they behaved as if they believed it. Infallibility is simply the belief that what a teacher teaches is without error in matters of faith and morals. In other words, it is trustworthy and true. Most of my fundamentalist friends and family go to their church week in and week out with the basic, underlying assumption that their pastor teaches them the truth in matters of faith and morals. In that respect, they believe he is infallible. They know he is an imperfect man, but they believe that an imperfect man might teach the perfect truth perfectly.

They know that he does not know everything and that he is not the final authority on all things, but in that respect again, they are like the Catholics, who also admit these things about their pastor (the universal one that is) Furthermore, most church goers admit this of their system of theology, their mode of worship and their style of church governance. In other words, they assume at the basic level, that their way of doing things is not only right, but it is God-given.

When you think about it, it is obvious that anybody who wants to belong to a church has to work on this assumption, otherwise their church wouldn't 'work' for them. How can you belong to a church when all the time you are doubting that it's underlying authority structure is unreliable? To belong to a church you have to make the assumption that the whole substructure is true and trustworthy. So there are all sorts of ways of believing in an infallible church authority even if people are not aware of it.

There are also many ways of not believing in an infallible church authority and following relative religion. It is easy to say that the only people who follow a relativist creed are the flaming liberals who think anything goes and 'if it feels good do it.' However, just as infallibility can be held unknowingly, so can relativity. The conservative Evangelical is just as relativist in his underlying philosophy as the most radical liberal, it's just that he doesn't think he is because he professes to trust in 'Biblical authority'.

However, every Evangelical and every Evangelical denomination interprets the Bible differently. Furthermore, while they profess to hold to the 'faith once delivered to the saints' most of them are guilty of moral and doctrinal drift as much as the liberal denominations, even though that drift has not been as far and as fast. 

The typical Protestant, therefore is in a real bind. His belief in Biblical authority has led him to both reject an infallible authority other than the Bible, (while actually in practice he treats his pastor or his denomination as infallible) and to reject relativism (while in practice his faith is relativistic because he has no infallible authority) Totally confused yet?

To put it simply, the non-Catholic Christian (without a recognized infallible authority) can only be relativistic, but in order for his world not to drift and melt away totally, he has to behave as if his personal opinion or the opinion of his pastor or the decisions of his denomination are, in fact, infallible. If he gas honestly thought these things through and says, "Well, it is true and we have no infallible authority, and this means our decisions are in constant flux and are at best provisional." Then he is really admitting to his relativist position.

Finally, there does seem to be another way. The typical Anglican will say, "Our authority is the Bible and Church tradition, and the first seven (or however many they choose) councils of the church and Vincent of Lerins' statement, "That which has been believed by all everywhere." In other words, a kind of "Mere Christianity" the problem with this, of course, is that it too, slips and slides away, for who is going to decide just what constitutes this 'Mere Christianity' or Vincent of Lerins' catechism or which parts of the first councils to receive or which parts of the belief of the church in those early centuries to embrace or reject? Those who hold this more 'traditionalist' view cannot agree among themselves just what this 'Mere Christianity' consists of, and therefore they too slip back into the same relativist position.

Given the assumption that the relativist position is untenable for any Christian who believes in a revealed religion ("What! Shall we have a revealed religion in which the essentials of the faith remain concealed?") I will go on in future posts to outline just what we might be looking for if we were to decide that we did, indeed, need an infallible authority in the church.  In other words, what might a God given infallible authority look like?

Camps Kahdalea and Chosatonga

David and Anne Trufant had a dream of running a camp. David had a photography business in their native New Orleans. Anne had a music ministry to the Catholic community. On a trip to North Carolina David heard about two camps that were for sale. They didn't have the money, but a local banker heard Anne sing, caught the vision and loaned them the money to buy the camps.

Now they run Camp Kahdalea for girls and Chosatonga for boys. On either side of the same mountain the rustic camps near Brevard, North Carolina are the most fantastic place to send your kids or grand kids. The camps aren't Catholic camps, but camps run by Catholics. In other words, the religion is not 'inyerface' but the staff are terrific young people--most of them committed Catholic university students. There is Mass on Sundays and grace before meals. There are times for 'wisdom and learning' but most of all the camps are places of great fun, enthusiasm, love and pure joy.

David and Anne and various of their large family help around the camp and maintain a loving, pure and wholesome Catholic atmosphere. They practice true hospitality and generosity with a great sense of humor and joy. Along with that the activities are second to none. The kids are kept busy non stop with hikes, mountain biking, kayaking and canoeing and so many activities and trips and outings that you'd get exhausted just thinking about it.

We take our students from St Joseph's Catholic School there on their annual retreats, and I got to know the Trufants at that time. They came down to Greenville for my ordination, and it's my joy to go there each summer for a time of retreat, to say Mass on Sundays and weekdays during my visit and most of all to spend time with the people there--the counselors, the campers and the Trufant family.

If you want to know more, check out the website and pay a visit.

New Friend

Ever since moving back to the American South people have told me that I would like the writer Walker Percy. I finally got around to ordering a couple of his books last week and took The Second Coming with my up to camp.

Well, I loved it and can't wait to re-read it. Then, as I was carrying it around with me Mrs Trufant (more about camp and the Trufant family later) spotted it and said, "My mother is here. You have to meet her. She was good friends with Walker Percy."

So sure enough, there was the Grandmama up from Louisiana (where the Trufants come from) and she lives in Covington and knew Walker Percy and his family and she filled me in on some of the details. Then there were some seminarians there who are studying at the seminary which is part of the Benedictine Abbey and Brad (who's a seminarian and on the camp staff) told me Percy was a Benedictine oblate and is buried there and I was moved and very please indeed to have found a kindred spirit.

I'm not a Southerner, and have spent most of my life in England, but I wonder if it is too late for me to be a minor hanger on, an imitator or a pale ghost of the great company of Southern Catholic writers. The list of them is pretty venerable already, and there are some contemporary voices emerging that continue the tradition.

More on The Second Coming soon.

Homily - Thirteenth Sunday Ordinary Time

Today's homily begins a series on the seven sacraments that I will be preaching over the summer months. For the beginning of this catechesis this homily considers the sacramental way of looking at the world. God is not only 'out there' but 'in here'--coming to us through the physical things of this world, and so how does this affect our lives, our worship and our actions.

Hello Muddah Hello Faddah

I'm not off to Camp Granada, but Camp Kahdalea and Chosatonga for a few days. Probably not too much blogging therefore.

Marian Conference

Marcus Grodi was in Greenville today for the Marian Conference. Here's your blogger with Marcus. That's good friend, former Lutheran pastor, Richard Ballard on my left. (note the halo!)

I spoke on my book Praying the Rosary for Inner Healing. Marcus spoke about the Marian verses he never saw in the Bible when he was a Protestant and why we don't get on as Catholics and what we can do about it.

A good time was had by all. If you missed it, you missed something great.

Marian Conference

The Greenville Marian Conference takes place today and tomorrow. Marcus Grodi and I will both be speaking tomorrow morning. Y'all come if you can. Information here.

Todd on Sanford

Well, it's red faces all across the Palmetto State this week, and not because of sunburn! It seems their conservative, Christian, family man Governor, Mark Sandford, has gone on a fling to Argentina. Saucy emails to his senorita have been published and the hypocrite has joined a long line of politicans, pastors and priests who have been caught with their pants down.

I am not myself a religious man, but I have great respect for those who do profess a religious belief. One of the reasons I am not religious is because of the hypocrisy of those who say one thing and hypocritically do something else. This is just sheer hypocrisy. It is important to have values and ideals, but it is one thing to talk the talk and another thing to walk the walk. Governor Sanford should take some lessons from the democratic Presidents. They don't pretend to have 'family values' in the first place. They are much more honest and are not hypocrites.

Governor Sandford, on the other hand, says one thing and does another. This is the problem with the 'right wing' whether it is political or religious. They are always being self righteously better than other people. Take, for example, the Pope in Rome. During World War II the pope at the time was called Pope Pius XI. He pretended to be neutral, but everyone knows he was friends with Mussolini and he was even called 'Hitler's Pope.' The Pope in Rome says he is not interested in political power, yet he is always working behind the scenes to dominate the world's systems. The fact that we now have a Pope who was himself a Nazi shows that these events behind the scenes are being controlled by a shadowy group of people behind the scenes. And remember, the pope before this one was from a notoriously communist country. The fact that the Pope in Rome seems 'innocent' only goes to show how devious he really is.

I do not myself go in for conspiracy theories, but the downfall of Governor Sandford suggests that something else was going on. There were too many secrets. There are too many questions left unanswered. We have a right to know, and the American system should get to the bottom of this murky business with a full congressional inquiry performed by Congress.

I believe we need the kind of transparency, open government and moral example that was exhibited by President and Mrs Clinton. They faced a similar scandal and came through it with their honesty and integrity intact because they admitted their difficulties and chose to get help. At that time I remember the moving and inspiring photographs of President Clinton on the steps of his local church every Sunday with a big Bible under his arm. Now there was a 'Christian' politician if ever there was one!

William Jefferson Clinton learned from his problems, got himself up, dusted himself off and didn't let a few problems in his personal life stop him.

Governor Sandford should have the dignity and self respect for himself to resign from office.

Todd Unctuous is forty two. To learn more about Todd Unctuous follow this link.

The Big Issues

Anglicanism is tearing itself apart at the moment over two big issues: women's ordination and homosexuality. Some of the Anglican groups continue to hold out against women's ordination to the priesthood. The latest Anglican splinter group: ACNA (Anglican Church of North America) allows its members to ordain women priests, but will not have women bishops. They hold out against homosexuality.

The issues of homosexuality and women's ordination, however, are secondary to the real issue of authority, and the question of authority has two aspects: mode of argument and the source of authority in the church. 

When we consider modes of argument, the progressives have really been caught up in the subjective modes of argument of our time. Their arguments are sentimental, utilitarian and political. The sentimental argument for women's ordination, for example, is "Sally is such a nice person, it would be so hurtful to deny her ordination." The utilitarian is, "Sally is such a good pastor and counselor and preacher. She would do such a good job!" The political is, "This is a question of equal rights." The arguments from Scripture and tradition and all the other disciplines essentially attempt to support these three basic modes of argument.

It doesn't take a German theologian to figure out that these three modes of argument can also be used to support homosexual marriage, homosexual ordination and most anything you want to support. So the sentimental, "Steve and Bob are such sweet guys. Why should they not be allowed to marry?" The utilitarian, "This is a practical move to help homosexual people with legal problems." The political, "This is a question of equal rights. You are denying these men the right to marry which you give other people."

What is lacking is any idea at all that there might actually be an authority that is greater than individual sentimentality, utility or political correctness. Some Christians would cry out, "But we do have such an authority! The Bible!"

The problem, of course, is that people on both sides of both of these questions use the Bible to sincerely support their view. The reason I became a Catholic in 1995 is because I sincerely confronted the Anglican Church's decision to ordain women priests.

I was determined to be open minded and listen to both sides. It turned out that both sides had good arguments. Both sides wheeled out Biblical scholars, church historians, sociologists, psychologists, monks, nuns, theologians, bishops, etc etc. Both sides were peopled by folks who were sincere, prayerful, Bible reading, church going Christians who really, honestly did believe that they were being led by the Holy Spirit.

This made me ask the question, "Then how do we decide?" If we put it to the vote in General Synod that really doesn't decide anything because those who lose will not accept it anyway. There must be a greater authority in the church to decide such matters, and this led me home to Rome.

If you would like to read more along these lines, check out my conversion story here on my website. The article is from my book of conversion stories called The Path to Rome. 

SPECIAL OFFER: If you are a clergyman in the Anglican Communion I will send you a free copy of The Path to Rome. All you have to do is email me through my contact page on the website, and be willing to make a donation towards post and packing.