Improvisation at its best

Unmissable - from the NLM, Olivier Latry improvising on the introit at mass at Notre Dame de Paris...




Some other necessary posts over the weekend:

The Scandal of Christian Uniqueness from Bridges and Tangents [here]

More on the still neglected work of Christopher Dawson [here]

Cultural / sexual bouleversement: Charles Moore at The Spectator [here]

A corrective? Perhaps...  "By drawing ever closer to God in prayer we leave open the potential for being drawn closer to each other"  - Archbishop Bernard Longley on 'the difficult path to unity' of the ARCIC process.... [here]

Corpus Christi Carol: Britten

Part of the early work, the choral variations, 'A Boy Was Born' of 1933. 
The fifth variation is a setting of the late medieval Corpus Christi Carol.



Lulley, lully, lulley, lully,
The faucon hath born my mak away.

He bare hym up, he bare hym down,
He bare hym into an orchard brown.

In that orchard ther was an hall,
That was hanged with purpill and pall.

And in that hall ther was a bede,
Hit was hangid with gold so rede.

And yn that bede ther lythe a knyght,
His wowndes bledyng day and nyght.

By that bedes side ther kneleth a may,
And she wepeth both nyght and day.

And by that bedes side ther stondith a ston,
"Corpus Christi" wretyn theron.

What price disestablishment.....?

So, it seems even a 'disestablished' Church isn't entirely free from the tentacles of the modern State, British or Welsh [see here and an official response form the Province here]
Paradoxically, given recent legislative developments at Westminster, "complete disestablishment" may prove an easier - and quicker - way to conform the Church in Wales to the spirit of the age ..... some, of course,  will not rest until that is so...

'There's a wideness in God's mercy'

Fr Faber's hymn sung here by the Choir of St Paul's Cathedral directed by John Scott; the tune is Corvedale by Maurice Bevan.

Appropriate in the light of tomorrow's Gospel ....

"...Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "What is it, Teacher?" "A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?" Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly...." 

Ultreïa!

It's been an odd seven days. Last Wednesday my training for walking the Camino de Santiago came to an abrupt halt when on a steep descent of one the local hills I tore the ligaments in my right shoulder.
On the other hand, I have to say I have nothing but praise for the local (NHS) hospital whose A & E department has ensured a rapid appointment with a sympathetic orthopaedic surgeon, a urgent ultra- sound scan and immediate physiotherapy. Mentioning the planned trek to Santiago didn't do any harm ...
So whatever has to happen later, the pilgrimage is still on for the beginning of September - relieved isn't the word.....  Deo Gratias! And a big thank you to St James....

Te lucis ante terminum

I was looking forward to some stargazing this evening, but the sky is rapidly clouding over - no doubt the next Atlantic front coming in from the west: this is June in Wales after all....

... to compensate, this is Henry Balfour Gardiner's setting of the compline hymn, Te lucis ante terminum ('Evening Hymn')  sung here by the Choir of St Paul's Cathedral, directed by John Scott



Te lucis ante terminum,

rerum Creator, poscimus,

ut solita clementia,

sis praesul ad custodiam.

Procul recedant somnia,

et noctium phantasmata:

hostemque nostrum comprime,

ne polluantur corpora.
Praesta, Pater piissime,
Patrique compar Unice,
cum Spiritu Paraclito
regnans per omne saeculum.
Amen.

Ocimum basilicum

Enough controversy for a while ...

There's nothing quite like the smell of crushed basil when you are cooking, there's nothing like the taste it adds to salads and pasta dishes - or anything else you care to add it to. Without being unnecessarily Proustian, the scent of basil and thyme is enough to bring back memories of my parents' garden, and, as a small child, being given a patch of ground and experimenting with growing a herb patch all of my own.
Over the last few years I've taken to growing basil in pots and then taking it with us to France for the summer vacation and, when it gets there and soaks up the sunshine on the steps outside the back door, watching it darken and thicken and intensify dramatically in taste and smell. Here, there's never quite enough sunshine, at least in in these western parts, to grow it successfully outdoors, even against a sunny wall. This year with a particularly cold  spring with, how shall we say,  not exactly unbroken sunshine, it's been a struggle to get the plants to thrive even on the kitchen windowsills

And after the summer we bring the plants back in the car and try to get them to last until Christmas and beyond ...
There's nothing like fresh basil grown in a warm climate.....

Having said that, there's also nothing which quite emphasises the cultural / linguistic divide between British (or English) English and American English than a discussion about herbs and basil, particularly if - as in this (British) video - you intend to grow it alongside tomatoes...

Does ARCIC do us all a disservice?

Dr William Oddie at The Catholic Herald [here] asks the question, 'why do we continue talking to the Anglicans after they have so wilfully made unity impossible?'
Typically, he doesn't pull his punches; but he has a point: as a former Anglican priest he knows exactly what he is dealing with. The continuing existence of ARCIC certainly blinds many otherwise thoughtful Anglicans to the fatal ecumenical consequences of our western synodical love affair with heterodoxy. 'Ah, but ARCIC continues to meet,' say our leaders, 'all we need do is wait until Rome catches up.'
The reality is, of course, very different. 

ARCIC will inevitably continue in some form because it is the vocation and responsibility of the Catholic Church to promote the perfect unity of all those who are His disciples, something for which Christ prayed before His Passion. The ecumenical imperative is not in question.
The distance, however, between the respective official positions of the participants continues to widen - almost wholly because of the changes in the Anglican theology of the sacred ministry - if it can now be said to have a coherent theology at all in practice -  and, increasingly, on matters of moral theology.  The value and importance of the 'dialogue' ( if such it be) diminishes accordingly. An ecclesial body which insists on the ordination of women and will, in time, it seems increasingly likely, come to advocate the sacramentality of homosexual unions, will never be in full communion with a Church which cannot sanction either.

The Orthodox are much more 'up front' about all this; but the question has to be asked: is post-Vatican II Roman tact and diplomacy not now encouraging and fostering the very errors into which we, as Anglicans, are being led?    
Despite the modern roadblocks liberal theology has placed in the way of further progress, Anglican Catholics have always been encouraged to believe that the accords so far reached are somehow 'in the bank' for use at some future date. Undoubtedly, for beleaguered Anglo-Catholics, the ARCIC agreements offer a degree of support and theological sustenance in our ever more precarious position; but outside our ranks, given the increasingly rapid theological and ethical divergence between Rome and Canterbury, who, we have to wonder, will still be interested enough to make a withdrawal?

Local news but old news - if it's news at all ...

Jonathan Petre writes in The Mail about the Dean of St Albans' chances of becoming, not the new Bishop of Durham, as recent rumours have suggested, but the next Bishop of Monmouth in the Church in Wales  [here]
This story has been doing the rounds for some time. Who knows? 
In any case, it seems we'll just have to contain our excitement until mid-July 

The media and the Turkish riots, and other recent news

If all one has is  access to the British media's reporting, one might be forgiven for being a little puzzled about the causes of the recent riots in Turkey. Those on the streets have been largely young, educated, middle class, a balanced mix of the sexes, secularists and so on ... surely exactly the people to whom our broadcasters would normally have been bending over backwards to give a voice. What is it all about? The redevelopment of green spaces in Istanbul surely cannot account for the level and duration of the protests or the initial severity of the regime's response; perhaps, then,  it's more to do with affluent resentment towards a government which favours the rural poor at the expense of the urban elite.

And then someone let the cat out of the bag. The Turkish Government, supported in its EU membership bid by the whole British establishment (including Boris Johnson - for obvious reasons...) is facing massive internal opposition because of its policy of creeping Islamification, an agenda which relies upon attacks on intellectual and press freedom, a politicisation of the judicial system, the restriction of women's rights and opportunities and a wholesale undermining of the secular constitution introduced by Ataturk in the 1920s. 
It seems to have been King Abdullah of Jordan who let it drop that the elected Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told him in a conversation that democracy "is a tram you ride as far as you want to and then get off’." 
One can understand the myopic lack of understanding on the part of our political leaders who, historically, have never understood a vital British interest until it is fatally threatened, but why the obfuscation by the British media?  Obviously, it can be nothing to do with an obsessive and wrong headed form of multi-culturalism disguising a craven fear of Islamism and the response of an alienated and militant section of our  own sizeable Muslim minority; our guardians of truth are far more courageous than that ....

Peter Hitchens [here] compares Russian President Vladimir Putin's bad press in the West to the easy ride given to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan.

Also: 

The M.P. for Salisbury takes issue with his bishop [here]

More on the St Mary Undercroft row [here]
If the events of the seventeenth century tell us anything, it is that in England (Britain to be anachronistic) Parliament is supreme, even - especially - when it is wrong. Not for nothing is King Charles I an Anglican martyr.

When new 'freedoms' involve old-style repression: the strange, heavy handed cultural correctness of the contemporary U.S. military [here]

Archbishop Welby reveals his inner Tory - is that praise from Andrew Brown in The Guardian ? 
  

Throwing in the towel...?

Two statements over the last few days: the first [here] from the ( CofE) Lords Spiritual which many have interpreted as giving up the struggle against the Government's same-sex marriage bill. 
At the very best, it displays an essential confusion between necessary parliamentary tactics as the bill proceeds* and maintaining a coherent theological opposition. At the worst - in its seeming acceptance of "marriage as newly defined" (see below) it could well signal the beginning of a shift towards the stance the political establishment so vociferously demands from what  it regards (with some historical justification) as its 'house' Church....

The second, shorter, statement, from the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales [here], while maintaining its theological and philosophical opposition, also speaks of the need to amend the bill to ensure effective protections to hold the Government to its promises "to provide for schools, religious organisations and individuals."  What their statement does not do is make the mistaken assumption that this legislative redefinition has any essential validity for those whose allegiance is to a higher authority.

What this latest episode proves beyond doubt is that we are heading rapidly in Britain towards  the creation of a post-Christian secular State, albeit one - temporarily - haunted by its religious past. We must indeed, in the Prime Minister's tritely arrogant phrase, 'get with the programme;'  however, if we are to survive at all, 'the programme' has to be that of the pre-Constantinian Church in the milieu of an essentially pagan culture. We must become 'apologetic' in a somewhat different sense....

[* "For the Bishops the issue now is not primarily one of protections and exemptions for people of faith, important though it is to get that right, not least where teaching in schools and freedom of speech are concerned. The Bill now requires improvement in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the question of fidelity in marriage and the rights of children. If this Bill is to become law, it is crucial that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace..."]

Abuse - it's what we've come to expect

from certain quarters.... particularly on this issue...
Legitimate criticism, open differences of opinion, the recognition of deep divisions within the Church, an element satire even,  are one thing; this kind of graceless, puerile ad hominem abuse is quite another: so .... let's put it down to modern Anglicanism's failure to ensure a proper formation to its priesthood, shall we,  and move on... ?
From The Huffington Post [here] - although journalists really should try to get the terminology right, but it's just Christianity, so why bother ...

"...A row has erupted on social media after a Church of England priest called the Archbishop of Canterbury a "w****r" on Facebook over his stance on gay marriage.
Justin Welby, who was enthroned as the head primate of the Church of England in March, told the House of Lords earlier this month that allowing gay couples to marry would “diminish” Christian marriage and damage the fabric of society.
Angry over Welby's comments, Reverend M..... R........ said: ”What really upsets me is nasty people such as Justin Welby robbing me of my faith in the church, he does not speak in my name and I think he is a w****r, but im (sic) not going to stop being a christian or a priest.”

 Comments are closed 

So, it will become law..?.

The House of Lords has voted this evening to by a majority of 242 to reject the Dear Amendment * and allow the 'gay marriage bill' to continue its passage. It would now seem highly unlikely that further attempts to delay or amend the bill will be successful, but, as in France, opposition will rightly continue, both within and outside the legislative process. 
A report here, appropriately enough , from The Guardian. 
And a very different response to tonight's vote here
So Parliament will arrogate to itself the unprecedented power to redefine the nature of marriage...
I've always been somewhat sceptical about the need for the disestablishment of the Church of England; it increasingly seems an imperative if the Church is to remain recognisably Christian in its message; ties to an increasingly secularist, and even anti-Christian, State will now not only compromise her historical mission but render it completely impotent...


* '... the amendment of Lord Dear to leave out from "that" to the end and insert "this House declines to give the bill a second reading".' 

Comments are closed on this post

“Equity is a very much better principle than equality”.

As requested by several people, this is the full text of the Bishop of Exeter's speech given yesterday in the House of Lords debate on the Government's same-sex marriage legislation:

"My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, observed that, from a Christian perspective, God can be present in every true love. I absolutely agree. But marriage is about more than love. Then we are told that the issues at stake here are equal rights, justice and social inclusion. Certainly, these are things about which Governments may legislate. Indeed, if they wish to support particular kinds of relationship by according them tax and pension benefits, that must be a matter for normal political debate. However, in this Bill the Government have chosen to proceed not by addressing real, material or legal inequalities but by redefining the key concept of marriage and its meaning.
When Parliament legislated for civil partnerships, society gave legal and institutional expression to what many hold to be true—that gay and lesbian people should have the same rights to formalise their commitment to each other and enjoy the social and legal benefits that opposite-sex couples have. If there are matters in that legal provision that are inadequate or missing, rights that have not been conferred or legitimate aspirations not recognised, then that Act should be amended, and that would have my general support. However, the battleground that the Government have chosen is not material but conceptual. The argument is driven by emotional rather than logical considerations, which is why it is so difficult to debate. No matter how loud the protestations to the contrary, at stake is a shared and common understanding of the concept of marriage, together with the consequences—intended and unintended—to which they may lead.
We are told that the scope of marriage has evolved. It has, but “scope”, my Lords, not fundamental nature. The scope, as shown by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has been varied through history with regard to age of consent, number of permitted spouses, termination, what is allowed or prohibited and restrictions on members of the same family group. What has remained constant in all times and all cultures until very recently is an understanding of marriage founded on the premise of sexual differentiation and the resulting generic potential for procreation. It is with this unchanging basis that marriage has taken otherwise different forms.
The Christian tradition, in an understanding that has hitherto also informed English law, speaks of sexual union, the sharing of worldly goods, the help and comfort of one for the other, and the procreation and nurture of children. On their own, none has been understood to constitute marriage. Indeed, each of these worthy objectives may be found embodied in other legal arrangements. An agreement to share goods may be a valid contract, but it is not marriage; nor does sexual union of itself constitute marriage. Family units with children exist and have always existed outside the bonds that are recognised as marriage. There are many forms of human relationship for the support and encouragement of mutual love and comfort that are not marriage. Yet now, a commitment to love and be loved, arbitrarily confined to just two non-related human beings, is to be the sole basis for the married state.
Many of those advocating this development have sought to portray any opposition to it as a faith issue. It is not; it is a societal one. Shorn of the element of complementarity of genders, all marriage will be redefined, with consequences for all. Until now, common to the definition of marriage accepted by church and state has been an understanding that a marriage is not completed in the marriage ceremony, wherever that may take place. Marriage must also be consummated—completed—in the sexual union of male and female, and is voidable if it has not been consummated. However, with the marriage of two people of the same sex, the proposed law says that these provisions do not apply. Where is the equality in that?
Similarly, the current definition of adultery will remain unchanged—sexual intercourse outside marriage with a person of another sex—which, again, does not apply to marriages between those of the same sex. Where is the equality in that? Therefore, a Bill predicated on the claim that marriage should be equal and gender is irrelevant has to recognise that this logic breaks down when confronted by the reality of marriage as hitherto universally understood. However, the proposals contain their own logic, which is that over time the historic understanding of marriage must in law cease to exist. Despite this huge difficulty, I have still tried to understand the motivation for this radical reform. Why was civil partnership insufficient? Such partnerships already allow couples to share the legal benefits of marriage and, if there are remaining differences, it is easy to amend the law. I struggle to hear what is missing. I do not underestimate the power of law to change attitudes, but the question is, which law, and what is missing that would make such a difference? A civil partnership is an act of registration, simply recording in law what is already deemed to exist, whereas marriage, in law, is seen as a “performative act”. It brings something new into being, something that until the exchange of vows and consummation did not exist. A desire for such a performative act, a ritual, and an opportunity publicly to commit to mutual love seemed to be aspirations which I could appreciate, and so the law on civil partnership could be changed without depriving marriage of its single, central meaning.
However, Clause 9 of the Bill provides for an existing civil partnership to be transformed into a “marriage” simply by signing a register. If one marriage is simply a matter of civil registration without vows, performative acts or criteria for consummation, no provision concerning adultery, or presumption of parenthood, and if the word “marriage” is to have a single coherent meaning, then for every other marriage it must be the same. Marriage is now civil partnership by another name. A basic understanding of marriage, in law, will have irrevocably changed, and with one reality now bearing two different labels; or we will have legislated into being two very different realities, but confusingly bearing the same name. If that happens, it raises huge issues about social cohesion, and a move away from common shared values. I remain profoundly uncertain about the legal position not just as regards the personal views of teachers but as regards what may be taught in church schools. Are they to be allowed to teach a traditional understanding of marriage, one which until now church and state have shared, while in non-church schools a different understanding is to be taught? If so, what will be the implications for social cohesion as a result? Or will church schools be forced by law to conform to a new understanding which has no roots in the doctrines of any of the major faith communities, which then sets an extraordinary precedent for the state’s power to determine articles of faith, unparalleled outside the experience in history of repressive ideological states of the extreme right and left?
Further, what is to prevent other multiple understandings, including recognition of polyamorous, polygamous and polyandrous relationships, being legislated for in due course? That is the internal logic of tackling a legitimate issue of inclusion through the redefinition of concepts rather than addressing any real inequalities that may exist.
There is a quotation from Margaret Thatcher in Charles Moore’s biography:
“Equity is a very much better principle than equality”.
In conformity with that principle, my hope is that the Government will withdraw the Bill, full of so many seen and unforeseen consequences for the fabric of our society, and start again to produce something which truly does address the really important issues that have been raised in this debate.

Update: Forward in Faith reaction to bishops' proposals

Following on from this morning's post, this is the statement just released from the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Forward in Faith:

WOMEN IN THE EPISCOPATE: NEW LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 

STATEMENT FROM FORWARD IN FAITH 

We are grateful for the work of the working group whose report is annexed to the House of Bishops report GS 1886 (‘Women in the Episcopate – New Legislative Proposals’). We strongly welcome the House of Bishops’ endorsement of the group’s five-point vision (para. 12 of the House’s report).
However, we are puzzled by the conclusions that the House has apparently drawn from the working group’s report.
We continue to believe that a solution to address the new reality of women bishops will need to build on the existing framework which has enabled us to live together in the Church of England over the last twenty years. We agree with the view that there can be ‘no cheap trust’. Our future can only be based on a mutually trusting relationship. The proposal of legislation which sweeps away existing legal security damages trust.
In November, an attempt to push through a Measure with legal provisions which no representative of the minority recognized as remotely adequate failed – after much prayer and invocation of the Holy Spirit. We are puzzled as to why the House of Bishops apparently believes that its new proposals, which would involve no legally binding provision at all, are more likely to gain the necessary majorities.
As an organization whose members are overwhelmingly lay, the fact that the House of Bishops’ proposals would involve a significant shift of power in favour of incumbents and bishops is of particular concern to us. So too is the fact that the proposals would expose lay representatives, as well as incumbents and priests in charge, to the risk of incurring significant costs in defending themselves against legal challenges.
We still hope that the ‘new way forward’ promised in February will involve prayer, reconciliation, mutual respect and consensus. We welcome the facilitated conversations as a means of moving towards this end. We do not believe that the House of Bishops’ preferred option (Option 1) represents the mind of the whole Church of England.
We therefore hope that the General Synod will choose a way forward which builds on the existing arrangements rather one which destroys them. Such legislation would be far more likely to secure final approval in the shortest possible time.
Our comments and questions are set out in more detail in the document which accompanies this statement. 

+ JONATHAN FULHAM    

 LINDSAY NEWCOMBE

Bishops "closing down debate before it has started"

Not exactly a surprise - this is true to recent form -  but tragically disappointing nonetheless, because the Church of England deserves better of its apostolic leadership than a capitulation to those who would jettison the hard- retained vision of the catholicity of Anglicanism for the mess of pottage which is modernist liberalism - and will continue to drive the Church along this failing course, driven by secular ideology and regardless of the consequences, until all is lost.  

Thinking Anglicans has this: 

"Catholic Group in General Synod responds to plans for women bishopsThe Church Times is reporting: Traditionalists saddened by latest women-bishop proposals. The traditionalists referred to are the Catholic Group in General Synod.
THE House of Bishops preference for the provision of women bishops, “option one” (News, 31 May), has been severely criticised by the Catholic Group in General Synod as a “step backwards”.
In the first detailed traditionalist response, the group’s chairman, Canon Simon Killwick, says that they are “saddened” by the Bishops’ preference, accusing them of “closing down debate before it has started”.
The statement is not yet on the Group’s own website, but can be read at the end of the Church Times article."

In fact, if this comes to pass, it's not so much 'a step backwards' as a step into the abyss; we all know now - or should do - that this ongoing debate is not simply about women bishops but the wider and more radical agenda which comes along with them, an ideological 'purity' agenda of non-negotiable equal 'rights,'  which either demands or certainly entails (take your pick) the silencing, extinction or expulsion - de facto and otherwise - of traditionalist opposition; there must be no space, no place, for the survival of the tradition of the ages and an expunging of its reproachful memory from the life of the Church.
We must hope and pray and persuade that wiser and saner counsels may yet prevail. It doesn't have to be this way; we should encourage the liberals to get in touch with and feel their inner liberality - it has to be in there somewhere ...

The Archbishop of Canterbury's speech in today's House of Lords debate

".....However, I and many of my colleagues retain considerable hesitations about the Bill. My predecessor, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, showed clearly last summer in evidence to the consultation that it contains a series of category errors. It confuses marriage and weddings. It assumes that the rightful desire for equality, to which I have referred supportively, must mean uniformity, failing to understand that two things may be equal but different. As a result, it does not do what it sets out to do. Schedule 4 distinguishes clearly between same-gender and opposite-gender marriage, thus not achieving true equality.
The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape, with same-gender and different-gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as a covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society, as we have already heard, is weakened. I am sure that these points will be expanded on by others in the debate, including those from these Benches.
For these and many other reasons, those of us in the churches and faith groups who are extremely hesitant about this Bill in many cases hold that view because we think that traditional marriage is a cornerstone of society, and rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same-gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all, the Bill weakens what exists and replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective. This is not a faith issue, although we are deeply grateful for the attention that the Government and the other place have paid to issues of religious freedom. However, it is not at heart a faith issue. It is about the general social good. Therefore, with much regret—but entire conviction—I cannot support the Bill as it stands...."
[The speech - and the whole debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - can be read in full here]

Archbishop Welby has already come under attack for his comment that this " is not at heart a faith issue."  I'm far from sure the critics are right; the Archbishop's words are surely meant to convey to a largely secular audience (both in the Lords' Chamber and the country at large) that the concerns he, as a representative of the Church, is expressing are by no means restricted (and therefore, for many in our society, easily and immediately dismissed) to those who share his religious faith. The point he is making here, in referring to 'the general social good' is, in essence, in its appeal to the better ordering of society based on observable patterns of necessary human social and familial relationships , a natural law argument - again, something which can be embraced, in different ways, by believer or unbeliever alike. Far from being a concession to his opponents, the Archbishop's phrase simply widens the appeal of his argument. 

Olivier Messiaen: Livre du Saint Sacrement

Priere Apres La Communion

So what would be the limits...?

A revealing little exchange took place at the end of the early morning BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme [here] between the Bishop of Chester, Dr Peter Forster and the former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. It was pointed out by the Bishop of Chester that upon the passage of the current same-sex marriage legislation, for the first time the canon law of the Church of England would stand in direct opposition to the law of the land. 
Lord Harries also found that prospect worrying, but not for the reasons which would perhaps, for most of us, instinctively  come to mind, but, he seemed to say, because it is disturbing and unsatisfactory in itself that the Church of England would be out of step and out of touch with majority opinion in the country,  this then constituting one of the main  grounds for him to vote in favour of the current bill. Surely, that cannot be what he really meant to say - that the Church has to keep in step with public opinion?
But if we can take his words at face value, what, then, (the issue of same-sex marriage on one side) for the liberal establishment, of which Lord Harries is rightly regarded as being a prominent and distinguished member, would be the circumstances and the limits beyond which the Established Church of England (and, no doubt, its disestablished sister provinces) could not accommodate itself to majority public opinion in this  'democratic,' secular and, indeed, multi-cultural and multi-faith society? 
So, are there any limits at all? And if there are, by what criteria would they be decided? 
It would be good to be told before this sloppy, ill-conceived, dangerous and potentially sinister line of reasoning - a total abdication of all Christian ecclesial theological and ethical decision-making, offering a blank cheque to the zeitgeist - becomes the 'established' 'orthodoxy'.
Logically, admittedly in starkly different political and historical circumstances - at least at present,  it is hard to see any fundamental distinction between this position and that of the 'German Christians'  in the 1930s - that the Christian Church, together with its traditions and the interpretation of its Scriptures, should itself be subject to the popular will.  Another way of not being Church ...

"In His Presence"

Away today on a personally  much-needed retreat day with members of the diocesan Credo Cymru group. In an excellent day, beginning this morning with mass and ending in the afternoon with Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, we were fortunate to be renewed and fortified by some illuminating and thoughtful meditations  from the very able Fr David Matthews on the 'Corpus Christi-tide' theme of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, guided, appropriately enough today,  by the writings of St Justin Martyr.  

Healey Willan's O Sacred Feast (an English setting of St Thomas' O Sacrum Convivium)  




O sacred Feast
in which Christ is received,
the memory of his Passion is renewed,
the mind is filled with grace,
and a pledge of future glory is given to us
Alleluia.