Archives

By The Rev. Benjamin Bernier http://www.providencerec.org/news/ This generation owes a debt of gratitude to Mel Gibson for having dared use the power of modern media to bring before the eyes of millions the fruit of, what unfortunately has become a lost or rare art, the art of Christian meditation. The movie begins with an ancient quotation (700 BC) from Isaiah 53:5, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." This is the theme of the movie and runs through it from beginning to end. After the quote the movie goes on to recreate the events of our Lord's passion from the garden of Gethsemane to the resurrection, with brief flash backs to relevant material concerning the meaning of Christ's sacrifice in light of his own teaching. Although it will surprise many, in a sense, there is nothing new in this story. It is a part of the Gospel story that every devout Christian, nourished in the historical Church, has seen in his mind eye time and time again, as he follows the Church calendar reliving in real time the various aspects of our Lord's earthly life, especially the last moments rehearsed during Holy Week. In fact, this is a Holy Friday movie. Because of that, it is bound to be misunderstood by a culture which has lost sight of the reality and meaning of Holy Friday in its context on the Gospel story and its implications for the World. Just like Holy Friday, this movie is the kind of experience that only should be undertaken after due preparation. I believe this is the greatest problem that this movie may present. It will probably take millions of viewers unfortunately unprepared. Since people seldom read any more, and those who read do not meditate, even many Christians' acquaintance with the Gospel's story is superficial and incomplete. Therefore, many viewers will leave the theater in complete shock. It was interesting that at 5:30 p.m. of the Thursday after Ash Wednesday the audience in the packed theater, appeared to me some how unusual. It gave me the impression that the movie had drawn all sorts of people, even those who had not been to the movies in years. There were also many families (with children), some of which, seemed to me, were there as if they were coming to a Friday youth meeting or summer camp. They were ready with bowls of popcorn and soda in hand eagerly waiting to participate from holy Christian entertainment. It will not surprise me to hear that they were shocked or disappointed. This is not an entertaining movie. I know that every one around me cried with me, and I have no idea of any other reaction to the movie as the people abandoned the theater in solemn silence. The contrast between before and after was clearly visible. As I was coming out I noted a new full line of people chatting, with their share of popcorn and soda, while they waited for the theater to be cleaned to enter for the next showing. I could feel the weight of their scanning as they unsuccessfully searched for feed back the unusually silent crowd departing from the theater. "Another round of unprepared people," I thought. But what can one say? They will only find out how unprepared they were if after the movie they decide to go to a church that understands the value of Christian meditation and learn to read the Gospel with contemplative eyes. Then they will realize that all that brutality has been actually there in the Gospel Story, all the while, with real people of flesh and blood. They will join the countless multitude of Christians through the ages that have been, without watching the movie, already there. With them they will realize that there is even more there than they have yet seen or ever imagine. 'Where you there when they crucified my Lord?' the Negro Spiritual Hymn asks again and again. Michelangelo, Rembrandt, J.S. Bach and countless other artists have been there. We must go there also and face the suffering Christ. As people learn to read the Bible meditatively, they will discover that not all scenes of the movie follow exactly any reading of the Gospel and that in spite of the historical accuracy of the whole movie many details are not literally registered in the Gospels. They will then realize that they have seen first hand the fruits of the lost art of Christian meditation, i.e., the fruit of what happens when the mind engages the story reading with full devotional attention, and allows the imagination to recreate the story with its many details and shadows, recreating a multidimensional drama including things that may have been there, although they were not recorded, allowing the depth of the real human and divine drama to touch our souls; in a word allowing us to be there. I do not know how people will react in the long run. But I hope that this Holy Week we will receive an overflow of visitors to our services; people aching to see, hear, and participate more of the context and details of this glorious story. That certainly is my prayer, and that every Christian would learn to regard the profound mystery that lies at the heart of our Christian faith and life. That is why I believe we ought to thank Mr. Gibson, in helping our post-Christian generation to experience first hand some of the fruit of the lost art of Christian meditation, that it may have an opportunity to appreciate what it is that to which it is turning its back, and how ultimately few and evil are the alternatives. PD: A Word of Caution Like the meditations that we ought to do when we close our door to the outside world to be alone with the Lord, this movie is best seen first outside the limits of group pressure. It is too much of a personally moving story, and it would be better, the first time, to go with an audience you will not have to worry about their reactions. Only children mature enough to have meditatively read the story of the gospels and who have seen in the eye of their minds the reality of the passion should be allowed to see this movie. If your children have not yet cried while attentively reading the passion story, wait until they do. It would be an offense against them to do it other wise. The Rev. Benjamin Bernier 02/27/2004 http://www.providencerec.org/news/

"We have a war chest and we'll go to the mat for our property," says rector By David W. Virtue 3/1/2004 ST. LOUIS, MO--The Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd voted overwhelmingly on Sunday to leave the Diocese of Missouri and the Episcopal Church and to affiliate with the Anglican Mission in America. The vote to leave was significant, said the Rev. Paul R. Walter, 66, who has been rector their for nearly 8 years. "Of the 148 who could vote, 98 were present, 84 voted for and 14 against leaving ECUSA. The balance of 152 (the church has almost 300 members) are being polled." That poll will be preserved for additional evidence that the parish is united, said Walker. The Bishop of Missouri George Wayne Smith has inhibited Walter and has fired the Vestry and Wardens of the parish. "We are ready for war. We have a war chest and we'll go to the mat for our property," said Walter, a feisty, no nonsense Evangelical. Walter said he expects a fight from the diocese and they are prepared. Walter has been accepted as a priest in the Province of Rwanda. "Our Vestry voted unanimously to change our corporate articles to expunge any reference to the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri and to allow the congregation to align with any Anglican entity we choose. As a non-profit we filed with the County Court and the judge approved our changes and the Secretary of State issued us a revised document," Walter told Virtuosity. "We called a special meeting of the parish, which must, by law, be announced for three consecutive weekends, and set the date and time as 7:00 PM on Sunday, February 29th. The agenda includes a resolution of the congregation affirming the actions of the Vestry; a resolution officially detaching Good Shepherd from ECUSA and joining AMiA, and a resolution amending the by-laws to conform to the Articles of Incorporation," he said. Walter said that a church member who only attends about once every six weeks teamed up with a disgruntled former member, and went to the diocese and reported our actions. "Bishop George Wayne Smith immediately inhibited me after being informed that I was a priest in the Province of Rwanda. His lawyers then filed a complaint in the county court," said Walter. Lawyers for both sides did not seem anxious to go before a judge, so a very simple consent decree was agreed upon, said Walter. "Although we had some pretty absurd demands made of us, all we ended up agreeing not to divest ourselves of our assets and to allow the diocese to audit us. We agreed." "The parish approved three resolutions on Sunday night and we will go to the mat legally in four to six weeks. We have a six-figure war chest for legal expenses. None of it comes from regular parish cash flow. It is all specially designated giving." Walter said that his lawyers had already won a case, which set the precedent that property disputes in non-profits in Missouri area are judged on the basis of civil, not canon law. Walter said the Bishop George Wayne Smith sent a letter to his parishioners which was full of typical Episcopal gracious speak. "It won't sway them. One of the things he cautions against is acting in anger. He just doesn't get it." Walter told Virtuosity that morale in the parish was very high. "When word got out that we were leaving the ECUSA, three prominent Episcopal families in St. Louis immediately came over to us. Wardens and vestry members from eight different churches in the diocese have been in touch with me saying they agreed with us and shared our grief. They also said they would like to have us help them," said Walter. Good Shepherd is the 9th largest parish in the diocese. The bishop's letter to the parish said he had offered Walter "supplemental pastoral oversight". The bishop wrote, "I trusted then, as I do now, that another bishop, acceptable to all of you and to me, could exercise Episcopal ministry for you and your community. I remain open to this option. Your rector rejected this offer." "It was not alternative Episcopal oversight," said Walter. "The bishop wanted the last say in who that bishop would be and wanted to retain the right to continue his pastoral visits to us. No deal," said Walter. Walter said the consecration of V. Gene Robinson was the final straw in a church that had lost its way morally. "The resolutions at General Convention affirming Robinson to the episcopacy and same-sex rites was a bridge to far for me and my parish, and we are out of here." Walter said the bishop's accusation that he and his parish were acting out of anger was nonsense. The bishop wrote in his letter to the parish, admitting that "serious tensions" did exist between Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Missouri following the decisions at General Convention. "I will admit that the tension will not go away immediately and that your disappointment and anger may well linger. Anger does not sustain, although it burns brightly on the short term. On the other side of anger lies the very real danger of mounting disunity." "What anger," said a parishioner. "He just doesn't get it. It is about The Faith, not anger." Walter said he was prepared for battle. "We knew this was coming and we are prepared for it. We will fight all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. We will challenge the Dennis Canon." "If we lose, the worst case scenario is that 85 percent of the core congregation and 95 percent of its income simply walks off campus praising God. We only have a small endowment. I don't expect this anytime soon. We are going to fight for the sake of all the little places and people that couldn't possible muster the resources to do so." Should the church prevail the new parish will call itself the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd. "We will build a new church on the present property. We have been adding a family or two every week since word got out, and they are coming to us from the Baptists, Presbyterians and independent denominations. We are on a roll. We have nine candidates for holy orders, and we have three church plants under consideration. We are rejoicing in the Lord." The Rev. Canon Tim Smith, executive officer for the Pawleys Island based Anglican Mission in American said, "The Anglican Mission welcomes the courageous people of the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd in St. Louis. It is reassuring that stalwart parishioners and clergy will not placate the theologically corrupt structures of ECUSA. They desire to move forward in mission for Jesus Christ, and we welcome that." The Diocese projects a budget deficit of $168,000, which has forced the Diocesan Council to put the brakes on spending in the 2004 Program Budget. NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest biblically orthodox Episcopal/Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe FREE by going to: www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity's website has been accessed by more than one million readers in 45 countries on six continents. This story is copyrighted but may be forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text.

By Paul Carter A fifth Anglican Primate has joined an alliance of International Archbishops that has extended an offer of "temporary adequate Episcopal oversight" to churches in Canada. The Most Rev. Benjamin Nzimbi, Archbishop of Kenya, indicated his desire to assist the alliance that already includes the Primates of Central Africa, Congo, Rwanda and South East Asia. The offer of "temporary adequate Episcopal oversight" was recently made to congregations and clergy that could not, because of religious conscience, support the decision of the Diocese of New Westminster to bless same-sex unions. The diocese's unilateral, divisive and unprecedented move, taken in 2002, was denounced throughout the Anglican Communion as contrary to Scripture, Christian tradition over 2000 years and the clear wishes of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion. Since that time, the churches and clergy who would not support the diocese's unbiblical action have been in a state of impaired communion with their bishop and have faced threats of action against them and their parishes. Many Anglican leaders, including two successive Archbishops of Canterbury, have issued statements against the Diocese of New Westminster and in support of these churches. The congregations and clergy who accept the offer will now have the covering and oversight of five Anglican Primates and a valid connection to the rest of the Anglican Communion. The offer of "temporary adequate Episcopal oversight" is made as a positive step forward in dealing with the crisis in the Canadian church as the Anglican Communion deals with issues of realignment around the globe. The Rev. Paul Carter is vicar of Immanuel Church, Westside in Vancouver, BC and is active with the ACINW.

February 25, 2004 Ash Wednesday Memorandum to: the Clergy of the Diocese of Central Florida From: Bishop John W. Howe Dear Brothers and Sisters, I am now able to report to you regarding recent developments relating to The Church of the New Covenant and the Diocese of Central Florida. On January 18, 2004, the Rector and Vestry of New Covenant unanimously passed two resolutions, which the Rector and some of the Vestry's representatives discussed with our Chancellor and me on February 5, 2004. The first of the resolutions declares that The Episcopal Church, USA has abandoned its authority over the Church of the New Covenant. The delegation explained that this resolution expresses the desire on the part of the Rector and the Vestry to "come out from under the authority of the Episcopal Church" (as the Senior Warden put it). The second resolution put a mechanism in place for the transfer of title of the property to a separate corporation. Fr. Buffington, the Senior Warden, their Chancellor, and another lawyer from New Covenant, said that they want to continue being part of the Diocese of Central Florida, and under the "spiritual authority" of the Bishop of Central Florida, but no longer part of the Episcopal Church, USA. My answer, in brief, was that there is no way to do that: to be part of the Diocese of Central Florida is to be part of the Episcopal Church; and further, although the Church of the New Covenant holds title to its property, according to the Canons of the Episcopal Church it holds that property in trust for the Episcopal Church, USA and the Diocese of Central Florida. Therefore, the title to the property cannot be transferred without the prior agreement of the Bishop, Board, and Standing Committee of the Diocese, and indeed, without the consent of the national Church, as well. On February 5th the new Diocesan Board had not yet met, and therefore the new Executive Committee of the Board had not yet been nominated or confirmed. Thus, under our Canons, the "old" Executive Committee was still in place; "...[its members] shall serve until their successors are chosen and qualified." (Canon VI, Section 6) Accordingly, we polled the "old" Executive Committee, and it voted unanimously to take preventative legal action, if it was deemed necessary, to stop the transfer of property without proper consent. I then followed up on our meeting with a letter to the Rector and Vestry, asking them to formally rescind the two resolutions, and telling them that if they were unwilling to do so they would have to resign their respective positions, as the resolutions contradict their accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Central Florida. I asked them to respond to me "immediately." When five days passed with no response from the Rector and Vestry of the Church of the New Covenant, the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and I decided that we did need to file an action with the court in Seminole County to prevent the transfer of title from proceeding any further. We informed the Chancellor of the Church of the New Covenant that we were about to do so. We also made a full report of these developments to the Diocesan Board and the Standing Committee when each of them met for the first time this year last week on February 19, 2004. I am now able to report that as of yesterday the second of the two resolutions has been formally rescinded by the Rector and Vestry of the Church of the New Covenant, and both they and I have agreed to a legal stipulation that while this court action is pending there will be no attempt on the part of the Rector and the Vestry of the Church of the New Covenant to transfer or encumber the real property without first obtaining the required Diocesan consents. In turn we have agreed that while this court action is pending there will be no action taken by the Diocese to remove the Rector or any member of the Vestry. Both parties have requested the Court to enter an order referring this matter to non-binding mediation. I think I should also mention that I have been contacted by some of the members of the Church of the New Covenant who have expressed their opposition to any attempt to leave the Episcopal Church, and their dismay that this action is being contemplated in their name. Please do continue holding all parties concerned in your prayers. I will share with you any further developments when I am able to do so. Warmly in our Lord, +John W. Howe Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida 1017 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 (407)423-3567

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 01/03/2004) Anglicanism's most senior critic of homosexuality is to embarrass the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, by boycotting a top-level meeting in Canterbury today in protest over its first openly gay bishop. The Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, is refusing to attend the meeting of Church leaders, hosted by Dr Williams, because he objects to the presence of the leader of the liberal American Church. The Archbishop, who heads 17 million Anglicans, is a leading opponent of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Frank Griswold, who defied colleagues by leading the consecration, last November, of Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Dr Akinola, has told friends that to attend the week-long gathering of primates and senior Church members would be a betrayal of his views and those of a majority of Anglicans worldwide. He has described the consecration as "a Satanic attack on the Church". The snub is the most dramatic indication yet of the splits at the heart of the worldwide Church, and it will fuel speculation that Archbishop Akinola is prepared to break away and lead a rival Anglican Church. Another critic of Bishop Griswold, the Primate of Central Africa, Archbishop Bernard Malango, is expected to attend the meeting, but only after issuing a scathing attack on the American Church. The Archbishop accused the liberal leadership of the Episcopal Church of inflicting "a desperately grave wound to the Church", warning that, if it failed to repent, separation would be permanent for the "spiritual safety of our people". His comments contrasted with those of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the former Archbishop of Cape Town and a leading liberal, who said at an Ash Wednesday service in London last week that Anglicanism must include everyone, regardless of their sexuality. The latest hostilities have undermined the efforts of Dr Williams to encourage talks between the warring parties and of the Lambeth Commission set up in October to try to avert schism. The commission, which is chaired by the Primate of All Ireland, Dr Robin Eames, urged both sides last month to end their use of "strident language" which is threatening to tear the Church apart. Insiders say that efforts by the commission to broker a deal between the conservatives and liberals, which could allow them to co-exist, has reached a "stalemate". The meeting in Canterbury of the joint committee of the Primates' standing committee and the standing committee of the Anglican Consultative council is not directly related to the commission, but is regarded as crucial.

Church of Apostles no longer funds diocese, national church By Frank E. Lockwood HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER PRESTONSBURG - Leaders of a Lexington Episcopal congregation, objecting to the consecration of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson, are no longer sharing communion with Lexington Bishop Stacy Sauls. Church of the Apostles, a 7-year-old evangelical parish, has stopped giving money to the Lexington diocese and the Episcopal Church USA. The congregation, with an average attendance of about 110 people, has contemporary worship services -- no pews, prayer books or pipe organs. But it adheres to traditional scriptural interpretations, and is in "impaired communion" with the diocese, said its minister, the Rev. Martin Gornik. The Lexington parish is the second parish to publicly challenge Sauls. Saint John's Church in Versailles split in January after diocesan leaders dismissed that church's governing board. Earlier this month, the church's governing board voted unanimously to join the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes -- a national group which claims the Episcopal Church has abandoned "the historic faith of the Bible." Yesterday, at the diocese's annual convention, Gornik and four members of his congregation declined to take bread and wine which Sauls had consecrated. They sat in silence while others went forward. "Clearly, this is an unusual thing," Sauls said afterward. The impaired communion capped a day that featured diocesan elections, a worship service and a brief debate about marriage for gays. Asked whether he thinks Apostles will leave the Episcopal Church, Sauls said he doubts that will happen, but added, "It certainly is a possibility that can't be ruled out." Gornik said the congregation is committed to the Anglican tradition. But locally, Apostles will continue to dissent "until there is a change in direction by the leadership of the diocese." Relations have been strained since Sauls voted to approve the election of Robinson, a Lexington native, as bishop of New Hampshire. "It is serious and grievous that our diocese cannot affirm what we understand to be basic and central teachings of the faith," Gornik said. Sauls said he respects Gornik and hopes the relationship will be restored. "I do not consider myself in impaired communion with them in any way," he said. "But I respect the fact that they see the relationship as impaired from their perspective." In recent weeks, Episcopal leaders have downplayed the importance of correctly interpreting scripture. The Episcopal bishop of Virginia, Peter James Lee, recently told his diocese's annual convention: "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy." Sauls put it differently. Saying that "Scripture is full of logical inconsistencies," he told his annual convention Friday that "when it comes to family, how I love matters more than how I think." Loving each other, Sauls told the convention, "matters more than how many other commandments, laws or rules I can quote or how many specks I can see in the eyes of others while ignoring the log in my own." Gornik said he can't support efforts "to revise and change what has been understood as traditional and historic teachings of the church, based on scripture." Since founding Church of the Apostles in 1996, "We have taught, preached, discipled and formed people in the orthodox traditions of the church. That's who we are." In other convention business: A resolution opposing marriages for gay couples in the church, tabled by the convention's resolutions committee, remained off the agenda -- despite protests from some deputies. Lay deputies voted 54-46 not to debate the issue now, siding with a resolutions committee which Sauls had appointed. Clergy voted 19-7 to delay the discussion. The convention voted to oppose the death penalty for juvenile offenders and to increase assistance to Haiti. Deputies approved a resolution praising Sauls' "perseverance, wisdom and visionary leadership."

Rowan Williams is interview by Martha Linden of the Press Association 2/27/2004 [ACNS Source: Press Association] The Archbishop of Canterbury celebrated his first anniversary today and spoke of the pressures of his job and the pain of the furore over the nomination of a gay bishop. The Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams, 53, said the level of expectation about his post as archbishop was "very, very high" and had been intensified by the long lead-up to his appointment. He said the row over the nomination as Bishop of Reading - and later withdrawal of acceptance - of the Rt Revd Jeffrey John, the gay but celibate Chancellor and Canon Theologian of Southwark Cathedral, had been at a "very high" personal cost to many people. In an exclusive interview with the Press Association to mark the first anniversary of his enthronement, Dr Williams said he missed Wales, where he was formerly Archbishop, and still thought of it as home. He added that in spite of the pressures of his job and a number of pastoral visits abroad this year, he has managed to publish two books and a collection of essays and still keeps up when he can with his favourite cartoon series The Simpsons. Asked how he had found his first year in post, Dr Williams said there had "certainly" been pressures on him. He said, "I think that the level of expectation on any archbishop is very, very high. "The expectation within Britain, both in the church and in the wider culture - because, as somebody put it, you have got to try to be a sort of vicar for the whole country - and then the expectation in the Anglican Communion, holding a global family of churches together, in some way giving leadership there... so there are huge expectations. I think because of the long lead-up to the appointment, the very high public interest means even more expectation and projection going on." He said it was impossible to live all the time "with other people's images". The only thing that kept him "sane" was "doing the next thing" that has to be done as carefully and prayerfully as possible, he said. Commenting on Dr John, the Archbishop said he believed a number of people were "taken aback" by the powerful strength of feeling against the nomination. He said, "What it focused for me, most painfully, in a way, is what it means to try and hold and articulate what the church overall is thinking and wanting." He added, "It was a very difficult period trying to listen to what I thought the church overall, worldwide as well as in England, was wanting on this. Of course, the personal cost to lots of people is very high." Dr Williams said he did not believe change was inevitable in the Church of England's policy on homosexuality following a debate at General Synod this month in which the majority of speakers backed a more liberal stance on gays. "I do not think that change is ever inevitable," he said. "I think that the Church of England's position, whatever was said after the Synod, remains pretty much where it was. What changed, I think this is important, is the tone of the debate. I sensed less anger and anxiety in the debate and wherever the church finds itself, I think that has to be a good thing." He added that endorsing Some Issues In Human Sexuality, the House of Bishops report, did not "at all" open the door to services of blessings for gay couples. "What it did simply was to recognise the range of theological thinking there is in the discussion at the moment and try to put it over in an accessible form." Dr Williams said his audience with the Pope in October had been a moving movement for him and his wife Jane. Asked about whether he believed the Pope had given up on hopes of unity between Anglicans and Catholics in the light of the appointment of openly gay Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in the US, Dr Williams said, "I don't think the Pope has given up. I don't think anyone in Rome has given up in that sense. Of course, what you are faced with is the honest acknowledgement of serious problems - there is no denying that. But no sense of the door closing, not at all." Speaking of meeting the Pope, he said it was a moving experience to meet someone with such a depth of Christian experience who has lived through Nazism and Communism. "Of course, as an Anglican I do not automatically believe everything that the Papacy says, that is a theological point, but the sheer Christian and human greatness of the man is just undeniable," he said. Dr Williams said he did not have any theological objections to women bishops at any level of the Church of England. Asked about a report that women could be barred from becoming archbishops under a series of options put forward by a Church of England working party, he said the document put forward "all sorts of options". "While I don't see any theological objection to women bishops, how it is introduced, at what price, is not something for which I have short and glib answers I am afraid," he said. "Of course, it happens in other provinces. It would seem to me a little odd if we ended up with an option which allowed women to become bishops but only so far. In the long run, I do not think there is a theological defence for that." In his interview, Dr Williams renewed his attack on the Government over plans to create a single tier of appeal for asylum seekers whose cases are rejected by immigration officers. "I think in British society generally there is quite a lot of nervousness about incomers which has been intensified by security anxieties over recent years and I think it is quite easy sometimes to collude with that anxiety," he said. "Let me come at it another way - there is a solid traditional Christian moral principle which says that there may be something worth defending, but if you defend it wrongly, then its worthwhileness is diminished. So the way in which you defend something you care about actually affects what you are defending and that is my worry about some of the present suggestions about short cuts in the law and the reduction of the appeal structure for asylum seekers particularly." He added, "We are proud of British society, we want to defend it. If we defend it by means that victimise or exclude people unjustly, then the very thing we are defending is affected by that." Asked about a BBC survey showing Britain is one of the least religious countries in the world with belief and churchgoing among the lowest on the planet, Dr Williams said he was not greatly surprised but was "slightly puzzled" by the findings. He said there had been other surveys suggesting that 75% of people in the country still identified as Christians. "This is not so much a nation of unbelievers as a nation of rather confused thinkers about this," he said. "But yes, let's not beat about the bush, there is a problem. Very large numbers of people, especially younger age groups, have very little of what we would call lively contact with the church, with any sense of what religious language is about." He said it was often said that we were a society interested in spiritual matters rather than organised religion. "I think as has been said recently, we are quite an emotionally volatile society. The British are not a stiff upper lip people any longer and the great displays of public emotion about public events, the Diana phenomenon, is also a feature of it." Dr Williams, who was previously based with his wife and two children in Bishopstow, Newport, south Wales, said he missed the country. He said, "It is my home, quite simply, and it is how I still feel about Wales. I miss the particular strength of being a small church in a small country, where whatever the frustrations, everyone knew each other pretty well, and sometimes therefore holding out a sense of common purpose and collegiality is easier than in larger churches." He added, "I miss friends and I miss contacts in the politics and cultural life of Wales and sometimes I miss the language too." He added that London was "never dull" and was a fascinating and absorbing place to live in. He said for himself and his family, the availability of concerts and theatre in the capital had been a "tremendous plus", as well as the chance to make new friendships. Asked about The Simpson cartoons, he said he did not watch it "quite so" much as before. But he joked, "I try to keep it up, I was going to say religiously, but I'd better not." Dr Williams has published a book called Silence And Honey Cakes, on the contribution of the desert fathers in 4th century Egypt, and a book of meditations called The Dwelling Of The Light Praying With The Icons Of Christ, as well as a collection of essays since his enthronement.

27 February, 2004 GABORONE - Episcopal synod of the Anglican province of central Africa comprising bishops from Botswana, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe feels separation with Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA) is inevitable. The separation would become permanent if there is no repentance by the Anglican Church in America. This follows last year's ordination in the New Hemisphere, United States, of an active homosexual as a bishop. Archbishop Bernard Malango of Malawi said after the meeting held at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Gaborone on Wednesday that the ordination "has inflicted a desperately grave wound to the church and the communion". He said ECUSA has ignored the clear voice of God contained in the Bible. Malango said the 62 bishops who consecrated the gay bishop have disregarded the anguished cries of the primates of the Anglican communion, Christians as well as that of the Anglican Consultative Council not to go ahead with the election of the gay priest. He said ECUSA's arrogance has irreparably shattered trust and fellowship amongst fellow church members across the globe. "Sincere repentance is the only thing that could rescue those involved in the election of the gay priest" Malango said. He added that the presiding bishop of ECUSA and other bishops who have acted with him could not have been clearer. Despite pleas from elsewhere, the ECUSA bishops have declared independence from the Anglican communion. The separation created by ECUSA, according to Malango, cannot be ignored. "The province of Central Africa declares that relationship is fractured and communion is impaired and it is not possible to share what they have fractured," he said. Malango also said the separation is therefore necessary for the "maintenance of Gospel integrity and spiritual safety of our people". He said the way forward would be not to ignore the authority of the Bible, which does not allow sin. Malango said some countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda have already cut ties with ECUSA. BOPA

By JoAnn Samson February 28, 2004 To All Episcopalians and Anglicans, I am still a member of St. Paul's Church in Concord, New Hampshire, and have attended there since around 1984. I was not a delegate to the convention which elected Gene Robinson, but know some committed Christians who were and who took the election of someone else seriously. These people met all the candidates, as did I and many non-delegates, and we prayed and inquired of God about their choice and vote. I know of others who apparently did not bother meeting the candidates, including one who told me, wouldn't it be great for Gene to be bishop, as she knows him. Had I realized ahead of the vote that this election was orchestrated, I would have spoken up against it. I (and others) thought that Gene's name was included as he was a local, just to not cut him off too early. How wrong I was. I have previously written a piece about this, which was posted on TitusOneNine on January 28, 2004. I know more now, and am trying to write this as a more complete version, so that more will come to know what really happened. I have come to know that the election of Gene Robinson was "rigged", i.e., carefully planned, for at least a year, and perhaps for several years (with the case against Bishop Righter for ordaining a gay priest, for which our Bishop Theuner was a "judge" some years ago, apparently setting up the framework for thinking upon which the argument and support could be given). Bishop Theuner had employed Gene Robinson as Canon for many, many years and I have come to find out that he campaigned, cajoled, pushed and twisted arms to secure votes among the clergy. Delegates were carefully selected, when possible, to be amenable to Gene's election. Although my priest, David Jones (who has been here since about 1990) told the papers that the Holy Spirit did this, the Holy Spirit clearly led some "not in the pocket" delegates to vote for other candidates. Within a relatively short time, during which I was devastated and shocked with the outcome, the Lord brought the reading in 1 Kings 22 to me in the One Year Bible, and I was led to understand that this election was done by a lying spirit. Other readings over this period were directed at the latter days and what would happen before the return of Jesus Christ. That the Holy Spirit could have led the majority to vote for Gene Robinson and left the others to specifically not vote for him makes no sense. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Many left the Church and key persons resigned positions on vestry and church and diocesan offices within 24 hours of the election. Some stayed and prayed and watched what would happen at the General Convention, hoping it would be repudiated. Before the vote there, some were saying (a) if the people of New Hampshire, who know him, voted for him, who are we to change their choice, and (b) as the Holy Spirit did this, we must go along. As the voting was set up for Gene before the election in New Hampshire and much control was exerted, and the Holy Spirit did not do this, both arguments were erroneous. Since realizing this sham, I am concerned that nearly $180,000 was spent on bringing people here and making it appear to be an open election. I see why it was done, for it provided an additional argument that Gene was picked out of a field of wonderful candidates, and must be the very best. The other candidates actually had no chance, it being predetermined. After the disappointing General Convention vote, I was beginning to wonder if I had gotten it wrong, but God, again in the One Year Bible, brought up the same reading about the lying spirit and King Ahab, this time in Chronicles. Confirmation. Others here know what happened. I was fortunate to meet a few of them at the recent New England Convocation of the AAC. I also met Hugo Blankenship, the attorney who argued the Righter case and who is now counsel for the AAC. I made the connection there about the Bishop Righter case and its effect, and have looked into that decision. I have heard Gene Robinson give sermons before the election and over a period of some years. His sermons are full of confusion of Scripture. While he talks about supposed good things, they are twisted. He preached that he didn't know why Abraham would have thought he was to sacrifice Isaac, maybe because that was what all the pagans at the time were doing. That God spoke to Abraham? He also preached about the weeds and the wheat once, saying he was weeds and wheat. Consider what Jesus told His disciples about that parable. Listening to Gene and reading what he has preached, one has to ask whether he is even a Christian, if he has ever heard God's voice or whether he is just pursuing something for which he has directed himself (to be a bishop) for a long time. A view of his life, including the "ceremony" for dissolving his marriage in the church and for using the church to put an approval stamp on homosexuality shows me that he uses the church to justify his own behavior and choices. He spent a number of years here working on redefining the family, now paying off. Without children obtained by some means, there is no carrying on homosexuality to a next generation (if that works). He said he did not want to be "a gay bishop", but rather New Hampshire's bishop, but since his election he has been on a world fame tour and he has engaged in gay marriage advocacy and other causes for homosexuality. His arrogance and pride are observable, as is his lack of concern for those who do not agree. Furthermore, I heard from one of his cheerleaders after the election that Gene was so busy he did not have time to pray or read the Bible. I have come to believe that Bishop Theuner is somehow the source and fuel for some of what has happened. His other Canon made it clear that she does not believe in evil and does not believe in many other basics. Those at the church she was sent to in Rochester (when Bishop Theuner fired the rector who was against this election and sticking to more orthodox teaching) told me last Saturday that she said that Jesus was not coming back, and get used to it. The homosexuality [issue] is on the surface, but beneath it runs (a) disbelief in the authority of the Bible, not stopping just on this issue, (b) belief that Christianity does not have a message that is unique, for all religions are equal and should be respected, and (c) that everyone is saved anyway, i.e., that Jesus died for everyone's sins, that all are saved, that sin is not relevant at all, and everybody, regardless of what they believe (or do), is going to heaven. These are serious heresies. People coming in to the church are more at risk than those outside, because those coming in are lulled into believing the church is a fellowship organization to do good things and never hear the real Good News message. We still have the liturgy, of course, that at this point still says those things, but do people really think about what it says when they recite it. That Bishop Spong is still a bishop with what he has stated he believes makes me very concerned. Gene Robinson is from New Jersey too. Somewhere this all ties together. Another observation I make is this: In the beginning of trying to convince the rest of us that homosexuality was okay with God, the arguments were (a) the Old Testament includes a lot of irrelevant things, like mixing cloth and not eating lobsters, (b) the prohibition against homosexuality was not about long-term committed relationships, but about idolatry, (c) men did not do with men what they do with women (not lie with a man as a man lies with a woman), being a "technical" argument, (d) the "old men" who wrote it were not enlightened by what we know now, (e) Jesus said nothing about it, but did love everyone, and (f) Paul was wrong, or maybe just a frustrated homosexual, but anyway talking about promiscuous homosexual sex. They spent several weeks trying to convince us. Arguments were also made that homosexuality is genetically determined, and there is no choice. If you consider the arguments now, you may find they are different. Having gained "world opinion" (you know who that comes from) that homosexuality is good, just a different choice of lifestyle, this is to be celebrated as diversity, and we now don't need to make the old arguments. They are only maybe used against us, many of whom have bought into the "inevitability" and "just as good as male/female relationships", saying that we are obviously unloving and not like Jesus, who would have welcomed this. In my church I have noted now that everyone is invited to communion "whether you believe in anything or not, no matter what your religion or lack of belief", taking away the sanctity and importance of the remembrance and repentance for sins. No speaking of "sins" anymore, just "Sin", in which we all don't live up to our best. A talk by our rector a few weeks ago for Alpha about "Why Jesus Died" did not mention sin at all, but talked about "Claudia's dream" in which she saw a dark place being brought to a light place by the death of Jesus. People in my church are being requested to see The Passion of the Christ preferably with a group from the church and to discuss it at church. We would not want anyone to start thinking about the sins of the world that Christ died for and what we might have to face. (Who was that figure in there opposing Jesus anyway? Satan? An antiquated notion, along with "demons".) People who were once committed Christians and teaching others about prayer and meditation on Scripture are now talking about yoga, transcendental meditation and other non-Christian activities. The group at my church planning activities for the year had groups for grief, groups for parents of teens, singles groups, etc. and did not even have "Bible study" on the list, until I asked that it be placed there. But who will teach it? I would, but will I be given the opportunity? The church is in great need of pledges to make its budget and we do have a very committed Christian new choir and music director. There are those who are committed to Christ, but many have left for other churches. Many cannot put their finger on what is wrong. I have tried to find another church, but feel God wants me to stay here for now as a witness. The stakes are far higher than just homosexuality or marriage. They are the basic beliefs of the Christian faith, which will be made obsolete by these folk. I feel that they are being led on by Satan and by a lying spirit, but God has also showed me that this is part of what He said would happen. After all, there had to be a Judas, did there not? There also has to be an AntiChrist. God knows what is happening. There are people coming in to the church who might not have heard God's true message before, but are they hearing it? Read Jonah. God sent Jonah to the Ninevites (not Jews) long before Jesus Christ. They repented and believed in God, as did the sailors on the boat. God is moving. We are to be sheep among the wolves and wise and watching. We will know who are God's servants by the love they show for one another. The proponents of the homosexuality acceptance are often harsh, angry, judgmental and unloving of those who express the Truth. Are we loving of our enemies and praying for them, so that some of these in the church can be brought to a knowledge and love of Jesus Christ and be saved? Are we being diverted by Satan into arguments among ourselves? Can we speak the Truth in love and witness to the Truth? Be sure to look below the surface of this issue and see if "sin" is now a dirty word in your church and whether your church is being taken over by false teaching. Satan's AntiChrist is not called the antichrist for nothing. This will be coming from within the church, including the False prophet. Do not be fooled into believing that what is going on is harmless. It is not. It is the power to kill and destroy. It is the power of the world that we have been warned about. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus knew everything, yet He did not preach that sin was unimportant and that homosexuality was okay. It was still a sin punishable by death. Think of the woman caught in adultery. The same is true for Paul. Could or would Jesus, his disciples or Paul or any of the Way say homosexuality was fine? Some have made teaching that their itching ears want to hear. On the other hand, we have all sinned and we all continue to sin. The constancy of repentance and following of Jesus Christ and turning away from choosing sin if important for all of us. We must stand firm on the basics of the faith. We will be persecuted for doing so, but then it says that, doesn't it? As for Gene Robinson: He has more than once compared himself to Christ. He adopted Christ's reading on the first Sabbath in the Synagogue of Isaiah "The spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me. I have come to preach…." for his talk recently comparing racial discrimination with homosexual discrimination. He answered, when asked if Jesus was the Way, the Truth and the Life, that he would be the last person to put God in a box. I am sure others can come up with other examples. God has said to me that Gene's rise to international involvement and recognition is not unlike what will happen with the AntiChrist. This is enough. I am sorry that this can have arisen in the Episcopal Church, but we are marching on to the end. I am grateful to be where I am at this point in time and I pray to be a faithful witness for Jesus Christ. I pray that those who have been misled into thinking that this election was by the Holy Spirit will take heart, keep praying and reading their Bibles. Hopefully with shared enlightenment we will be wiser and stronger. If you have not seen it, don't let anyone discourage you from immediately seeing Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. The Bible says that in the latter days God will pour out His Spirit on all people. When the Church becomes wrong, God will go around that. It is happening. Keep the faith that has been entrusted to you and speak the Truth in love. Your sister in Christ, JoAnn Samson St. Paul's Concord, New Hampshire

CAMBRIDGE, USA, February 27 (CNA) - A Catholic Harvard University law professor says all U.S. citizens should welcome President George W. Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, based on the implications of same-sex marriage. In an article on same-sex marriage released Feb. 25, Mary Ann Glendon argues that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, but a movement for special preference. She states that it will impair children's rights and jeopardize religious freedom. Furthermore, the decision to legalize same-sex marriage belongs to the people, not to the courts, and should be made according to the democratic process, she says. Such an important decision should only be made after full public debate, she says. "What same-sex marriage advocates have tried to present as a civil rights issue is really a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children," says Glendon. "There is a real problem of distributive justice," said the former Vatican representative to the Summit on Women at Beijing. "How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?" The financial implications of same-sex marriage must also be given consideration, she says, adding that the media has not reported the financial costs to American citizens for this "new special preference" in terms of taxes and insurance premiums. Children's rights Same-sex marriage will also impair children's rights, since it will endorse the view that marriage is for the benefit of adults and that children do not need both a mother and a father, argues the law professor. It will suggest that "alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together," she says. School programs will also be affected. Children will be taught about homosexual sex in marriage-preparation and sex-education classes. "Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer," she warns. Religious freedom at stake Glendon predicts that same-sex marriage will also jeopardize religious freedom and "usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. "Every person and every religion that disagrees [with same-sex marriage] will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against," warns Glendon. "The axe will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles."

Equating racial discrimination with Biblical rejection of homosexuality insults blacks, says black priest and activist layman News Analysis By David W. Virtue The new bishop of New Hampshire V. Gene Robinson said in a sermon in Chicago honoring the 200-year old ordination of Absalom Jones the first African-American priest ordained in the Episcopal Church, that his own oppression as a gay man is equal to that of "people of color." "The real sin, of course, of any oppression is making an object out of another human being. Treating people as if they were a commodity, an it. Slavery, of course, being the ultimate," said Robinson. "People of color. Women. Gay and lesbian folk. The physically disabled. The aged. All oppressed and all [are] offered liberation by this great God of ours, declaring the humanity and not the objectification of those people." Robinson pointed to the Prophet Isaiah and the 61st chapter. "It talks about the kinds of oppressions that we are all dealing with, and what you and I are called to do, along with saints like Absalom Jones, in our own ministries." "We're having a bit of a controversy in the Episcopal Church right now. I think you probably noticed. It seems to have something to do with an election in New Hampshire, and a consent given by the General Assembly," said a cynical Robinson. "Could it be, could it be that God is inviting us to go deeper? Could it be that God is asking us to pull our boat out into deeper waters so that we might get to know God better?" "As surely as Jesus was inviting Peter to stretch his notion of God's will, as surely as Absalom Jones was stretched to believe in his own humanity in a culture poisoned by the sin of slavery, so you and I are called to stretch our notion of God's love to all people, especially and always to those on the margins. Robinson's invitation to go to a "deeper place" is much favored by Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. But Robinson's mixing of race and sexuality issues outraged several leading Black leaders including Philadelphia Black Anglican priest the Rev. James Johnson. "I was saddened to read V. Gene Robinson's "sermon" on Isaiah 61:1-3ff. This passage is one of the great "Jubilee" passages of Scripture. It declares that now is the season of reprieve and rest, of pardon and deliverance for penitent sinners and yet it also warns of a final coming day of God's vengeance upon those who let this season of Jubilee pass by." "What is tragically ironic is that this very passage which Mr. Robinson uses to argue explicitly for gay liberation and implicitly for the "wholesomeness" of at least some homosexual relations, in actuality calls upon him and us all, to repent of our sinful ways while God has let open the floodgates of His mercy. Far from being a rallying cry for homosexual rights, this passage calls for the homosexual to repent of his homosexuality." Johnson said he found Robinson's contrast of Absolom Jone's being black with his [Robinson's] being gay outrageous. "This offensive ploy used by Robinson to sway the biblically illiterate, is the equation of being Black (or white) with being gay (or straight); that homosexuality is as non-morally relevant as skin pigmentation in the consideration of justice for all human beings. This is pure sophistry! Skin pigmentation is a small part of the beautiful diversity of the good created order and is to be celebrated as such. Racial prejudice and oppression demean God's created order and as such are part of the effects of the Fall. The error of Mr. Robinson is to consider homosexuality as part of the beautiful diversity of creation and not of the effects of Fall. The false parallel is between the struggle for racial justice and homosexual liberation. The true parallel is between racial oppression and homosexual practice and desires, as both are effects of the Fall which demeans the crowning glory of God's created order - man and woman." Johnson said that St. Paul in Ephesians 5:31-32 records that from the beginning, manhood and womanhood were created to represent or dramatize God's relation with his people and to Christ's relation to his bride, the Church. "In this drama, the man represents God or Christ and is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. The woman represents God's people or the Church. And sexual union in the covenant of marriage represents pure, undefiled, intense heart-worship. That is, God means for the beauty of worship to be dramatized in the right ordering of our sexual lives." Johnson said that as a result of The Fall, "we have exchanged the glory of God for images, especially of ourselves. The beauty of heart-worship has been destroyed. Therefore, in judgment, God decrees that this disordering of our relation to him be dramatized in the disordering of our sexual relations with each other. And since the right ordering of our relationship to God in heart-worship was dramatized by heterosexual union in the covenant of marriage, the disordering of our relationship to God is dramatized by the breakdown of that heterosexual union." Johnson said that homosexuality was the most vivid form of that breakdown. "God and man in covenant worship are represented by male and female in covenant sexual union. Therefore, when man turns from God to images of himself, God hands us over to what we have chosen and dramatizes it by male and female turning to images of themselves for sexual union, namely their own sex. Homosexuality is the judgment of God dramatizing the exchange of the glory of God for images of ourselves." Isaiah 61 is calling upon us all to repent while there is still time, he said. Dr. Michael Howell a cradle Episcopalian who says he is proud of his black Caribbean heritage, blasted Robinson's sermon saying, "as a black Christian and as a sinner who understands his dire need for redemption through the cross of Jesus, I am deeply appalled over Robinson's attempt to draw parallels between homosexuality and racial justice. It represents a very dangerous combination of ignorance and deceit. I am gravely concerned that sincere people who are struggling to understand why homosexual behavior is never compatible with the Christian faith, will only be drawn further away from the truth by this type of false teaching." While acts of violence or hatred against any human being can never be condoned, the circumstances that precipitate these acts have different underlying causes and therefore, require different courses of corrective action, said Howell an activist Episcopal layman and professor of marine geology who is active in a wide variety of ministries in the Episcopal Church. "Race is a characteristic of all human beings which is based on genetic factors which cannot be chosen by individuals. The current preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific research has demonstrated that homosexuality can only be classified as a pattern of behavior. No current evidence supports the hypothesis that people are born "homosexual", in the manner that someone is born with physical attributes that are common to a particular racial group." Howell said behavior is the result of many complex factors, including interaction with one's environment, and unlike race, behavior can be (consciously or subconsciously) chosen, modified or eradicated. "The large number of former homosexual practitioners who have successfully undergone reparative therapy to address same-sex attraction clearly supports this." "We cannot get around the clear fact that scripture always condemns homosexual behavior, both in terms of what is written and what can be inferred from careful and rigorous biblical scholarship. Scripture also presents a clear case against racism in its various forms (e.g., slavery, miscegenation). As Dr. Robert Gagnon points out in "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Theory, Analogy and Genes", scripture never condones slavery and eventually advocates its curtailment and eradication. Moreover, there are many specific passages and themes that argue against racial discrimination (e.g., Numbers 12), as well as the clear message that people of all races and cultures should be redeemed and reconciled to him through his son, Jesus the one and true Christ. The voice of scripture does not consider race as a condition that requires transformation, while homosexual behavior is clearly against God's created order." END

2/24/2004 Canon Edward Norman has written a scathing attack on the Church of England and is converting to Catholicism. Damian Thompson meets him "My new book is not actually a criticism of the Church of England," says Canon Edward Norman, chancellor of York Minster, choosing his words with donnish precision. Edward Norman: 'men are interested in truth, ideas, sin, wickedness and virtue'. Is he serious? Two minutes later, he declares: "There is a big hole at the centre of Anglicanism - its authority. I don't think it's a Church; it's more of a religious society." This is the most hurtful criticism that one can make of any Church: to say that it is not a Church. In fact, his book, Anglican Difficulties: A New Syllabus of Errors, is one of the most ferocious assaults ever launched on the Church of England. It is all the more deadly because its author is not a traditionalist quote-merchant, but a leading Church intellectual. A former Reith lecturer and Dean of Peterhouse, Canon Norman is an ecclesiastical historian with the long face and high cheekbones of a Tudor churchman. He speaks fast and quietly, polishing his dry words as he speaks, so that his prose and conversation are almost indistinguishable. He commits thoughts to paper that colleagues might let slip only in the senior common room after dinner. In Anglican Difficulties, Norman blazes away impartially at all the Church's factions. About the General Synod, he writes: "Every disagreement, in seemingly every board or committee, proceeds by avoidance of principled debate. Ordinary moral cowardice is represented as wise judgment; equivocation in the construction of compromise formulae is second nature to leaders." Evangelical bishops who trumpet their adherence to Biblical orthodoxy are accused of selling their principles in return for preferment. "Discreetly, behind the twitching curtains of the evangelical bishops' houses, the playing pieces are being set out on the board," writes Norman. So how can someone who believes that the Church of England is collapsing belong to it? The answer is that Edward Norman will leave the Church of England when he retires as a member of York Minster's chapter in May. Later this year, he will be received into the Roman Catholic Church by a Cambridge contemporary, Fr Dermot Fenlon, at the Birmingham Oratory. He has started attending Mass in Catholic churches, unobserved in collar and tie. But there is no mention of conversion to Rome in Anglican Difficulties. Norman stresses that leaving the C of E and becoming a Catholic are "quite independent developments". Like his insistence that his new book is not a criticism of Anglicanism, this point is not easy to grasp, but Norman is insistent. "Just because the Anglican tub is leaking is not in itself an argument for jumping into another one," he explains. His conversation drips with these aquatic metaphors. Over lunch in an Italian restaurant near the Minster, he announces: "Anglicanism is going to tip into the sea." He reaches for the bread with a thin smile. "But it will all come out in the wash." Norman eats a plate of pasta here every lunchtime. "It is my only meal of the day," he says, which is not hard to believe: he is rake-thin and ascetic, a convert in the mould of John Henry Newman rather than GK Chesterton. This is not an obvious candidate for "Poping". Like Newman, Norman has always been Low Church; when he arrived at York Minister, he had to be helped through the rituals. And didn't he once support women priests? "I was originally in favour, on rationalist liberal grounds," he says, apologetically. "Now, I'm against it - on the evidence. We were told that a whole dimension to humanity was missing from the ministry, but that enrichment hasn't happened." What follows is a typical Edward Norman argument, either perverse or original, depending on your point of view. "Women emphasise caring, relationships, suffering, healing and love. Men are interested in truth, ideas, conflict, sin, wickedness and virtue. Those are caricatures, but there was wisdom in Our Lord entrusting the office of the priesthood to men. "The priesthood is about teaching, not just conveyance of the sacraments. If you think Christianity is all about love and relationships, then it will disappear in the flood." He catches my surprised look and shrugs. "I can't think of a way of putting this into words that is acceptable to contemporary culture," he says. Not that he tries. There is something in Norman's world view to offend everyone: liberals, who imagine that "caring" is an adequate substitute for the rigours of the Gospel; lovers of art and music, who mistake aesthetic sensations for spirituality; Tory-voting country types who enjoy a jolly good sing-song at Matins. "The number of people who respond to the teaching of the truth is extremely small," he says. "I have friends who come to York Minster who are very good people, even godly, but it's a very conventional, class-based observance." Class runs through Norman's writings, a legacy of his youthful Marxism. His reputation now is that of a maverick Right-winger, but he says that is wrong: "I have no politics. My only ideology is classical Christianity, without reservation." In the late 1970s, Norman's broadsides against the trendy Left earned him the label of Margaret Thatcher's favourite clergyman; she even invited him to Chequers. "But there wasn't any meeting of minds," he says firmly. "Mrs T wasn't - isn't - a very deep thinker. She was the daughter of an alderman who was a Gladstonian liberal, and that was what she was, too. She was looking for an intellectual to give a pedigree to those liberal values. I have admiration for her, and found her personally kind. But I have been appalled by the results of naked capitalism." His own sympathies are unpredictable. One wonders if Lady Thatcher would still admire him if she had heard his final lecture at York Minster - an appreciation of the oeuvre of gay atheist filmmaker Derek Jarman. The lecture was extraordinary, not least for the Jarman quotes that Norman included. Jarman on Dr George Carey: "Moon-faced and pudgy, a clerical Bunter, the school bully in a lurex mitre." And on Carey's enthronement as Archbishop of Canterbury: "This is where crap takes you." The canon chancellor of York Minster quoted these lines as if he approved of them. Perhaps his failure to reach high office in the established Church is not that mysterious. Norman spent 17 years at Peterhouse, where one of his students was Michael Portillo. "A very hard-working pupil," he recalls. "I never noticed any sexual irregularity in his life." Most of Norman's time as a Cambridge don was given over to writing studies of (among others) the Victorian Christian socialists and modern Ireland. He was also a participant in one of the most vigorous High Table feuds in recent history, which began when he fell out with the Master of Peterhouse, the late Lord Dacre, over a memorial service for a don who had been caught shoplifting. Norman thought the man deserved a Cambridge memorial service. Dacre disagreed. As Norman recounts it, Dacre's views do indeed sound unreasonable. (Years ago, when working on a newspaper diary column, I sought Dacre's side of the story. He would only say: "Dr Norman is a s--t.") After lunch, Norman shows me around the cathedral. "This is a very poor example of the late-Gothic style," he says, his thin arm sweeping dismissively across the widest medieval nave in England. "It was put up on the cheap - the decorative devices are straight out of a stonemason's catalogue." But doesn't the miraculous, vaulted ceiling help worshippers concentrate their thoughts? "Cathedrals can be a hindrance as well as an aid to faith," says Norman. "They can lead people to luxuriate in emotion. I'd rather they were convicted of their sins." We pass a statue of the Minster's patron saint, St Peter, holding a key. It's an appropriate image. Soon, Canon Norman will be free of "the ideological chaos of Anglicanism" and in full communion with (as he believes) the successor of Peter. Then will come retirement in Brighton - "And I shall be properly retired," he says. The reaction of his critics is not hard to predict: "Well, there's one Anglican difficulty out of the way," they will smirk. But others will regret the loss of one of the most profound and unsettling thinkers that the Church of England has produced in decades. "Catholicism is what I have always believed, though I did not have the wit to realise it," says Canon Norman, gathering his coat around him. "You might call it a shaft of light before the sun sets." © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.