Damian Thompson on Lambeth 2008

Split at birth?

The Anglican Communion's 10 year meeting is getting more crazy and interesting by the minute.

Thompson reports that Rt Rev David Rossdale, Bishop of Grimsby, wrote the following about the C of E recently:

"We have been a Church which has been held together by belief, as contained in the historic creeds, and not by agreeing to particular statements about that faith."

Excellent.

In other Lambeth Conference news...

A senior Vatican Cardinal visiting the Lambeth Conference has delivered an incredible rebuff to its 650 Anglican bishops, telling them they are heading towards "spiritual Alzheimer's" and "ecclesial Parkinson's".

The comments by Cardinal Ivan Dias, Prefect of the Congregation for Evangelisation, must count as one of the rudest things a Vatican prelate has said to Anglicans since the dawn of the ecumenical era.

It can mean only one thing: Rome - and therefore the Pope - has given up on the Anglican Communion. Here is the quote, from Cardinal Dias's address to the conference yesterday evening:

"Much is spoken today of diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. By analogy, their symptoms can, at times, be found even in our own Christian communities. For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer's. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's."

Diaz is one of those Cardinals who favours welcoming traditionalist Anglicans into the Catholic Church. I reckon that liberals will be deeply insulted by his barbs - not least on grounds of political correctness - but that traditionalists will be nodding their heads in agreement.

One thing I'd love to know: did Cardinal Dias clear his speech with Cardinals Kasper and Murphy-O'Connor before he delivered it? Don't bet on it.

Some good news out of Iraq

This is good to see; whether you were against the war in the beginning or not, it's clear that we have to stay and pick up the pieces. I have noticed very little about Iraq, and a whole lot of Barak in the press... hmmmmm, maybe we're doing pretty well over there?

US monthly toll in Iraq at lowest since invasion
Jul 31 08:43 AM US/Eastern

Eleven US soldiers were killed in Iraq in July, the lowest monthly toll since the 2003 invasion, according Pentagon figures, highlighting what US commanders say is a marked drop in overall violence.

The number compares with the deadliest month of November 2004 when 137 American troops were slain, an independent toll by icasualties.org showed. The previous low was in May this year when 19 soldiers were killed.

Since the US-led invasion of March 2003 that toppled now executed dictator Saddam Hussein, a total of 4,125 US troops have been killed in Iraq, according to independent website icasualties.org.

The downward trend began in the middle of last year after a US troop "surge", although there were two spikes in bloodshed in March and April when fierce fighting erupted between Shiite militiamen and US-led forces.

Icasualties.org said the number of Iraqi civilian dead fell to 302 in July, the lowest since April 2005, from 373 in June while the toll among Iraqi security forces rose in July to 91 from 77.

The commander of US forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said in an interview published two days ago that overall violence was falling to almost "normal" levels.

Whole story here.

Hilarious & crazy: the wymyn priest ordinations...

Check out the whole thing from Fr. Z.
Commentary by Fr. Z.

Jessamine woman to be ordained a priest
By Jim Niemi
Herald-Leader Religion Writer

As a young girl growing up in Milwaukee, Janice Sevre-Duszynska often fantasized [That places it in the right category.] about becoming a priest while helping clean the sanctuary of the church her family attended.

“I’d sit in the priest’s chair, go to the pulpit, make believe I was preaching and giving communion,” she said. “I thought, ‘Why couldn’t I be up here?’” [Make believe is still fun!]

Now, 50 years later, she will get her wish, but it could come with a price — excommunication from the Roman Catholic church. [NB the small "c".] On Aug. 9, in defiance of the church’s 2,000-year ban on women in the priesthood, she will be ordained [No she won’t be.] by Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an activist group that has protested the ban since 2002. [Okay… what language is being used here? So far, its a "ban". Can’t only things that are actually possible be banned? Right there is a ban on importing Cuban cigars in the USA. But it is still possible to smoke them here.]

Sevre-Duszynska, 58, a Jessamine County resident and grandmother of three, has protested the church’s stance [now its a "stance".] for the last decade.

In 1998, she disrupted the ordination of a Lexington priest [classy!] at the Cathedral of Christ the King by pleading with then-Bishop J. Kendrick Williams to ordain her as well. In 2000, she impersonated a reporter [a liar too!] to attend an annual meeting of Catholic bishops in Washington, D.C., where she grabbed the microphone and again called for the ordination of women. And in 2002, she was arrested as part of a group protesting ordination of deacons by the Catholic Diocese of Atlanta. [and stingy! "If I can’t be ordained, no one can!"]

Choice Obama quotes...

A Washington Post article: "Obama continues hectic victory tour."

Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Some say the supremely confident Obama -- nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that "the odds of us winning are very good" -- has become a president-in-waiting. But in truth, he doesn't need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions.

Later, Obama's aides issued an official-sounding statement, borrowing the language of White House communiques: "I had a productive and wide-ranging discussion. . . . I look forward to working with the democratically elected government of Pakistan."

Obama was even feeling confident enough to give British Prime Minister Gordon Brown some management advice over the weekend. "If what you're trying to do is micromanage and solve everything, then you end up being a dilettante," he advised the prime minister, portraying his relative inexperience...

Ecclesiology doesn't get more messed up than this...

The African bishops- laying down the smack on heresy in the Anglican Communion!

"For the Sake of Unity" by Austin Ivereigh

From the ultra-liberal (click for whole article) America Catholic magazine...
Being a member of the clergy in the C of E sounds like working in Washinton D.C.; lots of personalities, but no substance and little accomplished.

Here are some choice quotes from the article (I saved the best for last...)

During a recent debate at the Church of England’s General Synod, N. T. Wright, the Scripture scholar and bishop of Durham, summed up the crisis facing the Anglican Communion rather graphically. “We are living through, on many levels, a massive outworking of the law of unintended consequences,” he said. “Or, in plain English, a slow-moving train wreck.”

[snip]

As the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Primates, which is held every 10 years, meets in Canterbury (July 16-Aug. 3) against a backdrop of what journalists are calling the “summer of schism,” it is worth noting that the cause of the current Anglican crisis is not disagreement over homosexuality. Most Catholics as well as nonbelievers I know have strongly diverse views about same-sex blessings, civil partnerships and gay adoptions; homosexuality is one of the great divisive issues of our age.

But disagreements do not necessarily lead to divisions or crises. The real question is why the Anglican Church has not been able to contain the disagreements, and why they are causing the church to tear itself apart.

The current crisis is not, in other words, doctrinal; it is ecclesiological. As the center of Anglicanism has moved away from the Church of England to the global communion, the glue that has held the Church of England together has been exposed as inadequate for binding the Anglican Churches worldwide.

[snip]

He [describing Rowan Williams] exemplified this when—although personally he is convinced that the church will come to accept homosexual partnerships—he vetoed in 2004 the appointment of a gay friend, Jeffrey John, as Bishop of Reading, because he knew it would inflame disunity. The “pro-gay” lobby accused him of surrendering to evangelical pressure, but they misread the decision. Archbishop Williams was demonstrating that a move too soon—however principled—can destroy unity. [what 'principle' is being referred to here????]He has more than once quoted to both the Episcopal Church and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:33) to “wait for one another.” [what the hell does that even mean? If you know eventually that the C of E will slide into further relativism, why does it matter to wait? What cowardice. If it's the truth that gays should be bishops, then Williams has no principles to stand up for it, and if it's wrong (obviously) then he has shown a lack of character with those words. By the way, what kind of ecclesiology is this? And who ever accused the Catholic Church of clericalism? This is amazing!]

So far they have not. A willingness to “suffer for the sake of the unity of the church” [you'll never hear of the Catholic Church speaking an untruth for the sake of unity, but the C of E prides itself on it] is something many Anglicans assume only Catholics have to do. The openly gay bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, is in England, popping up on television and radio to declare that Jesus loves him and that history is on his side, while the Global Anglican Future Conference evangelicals are growling from abroad, convinced the Bible is on their side. Kenosis for the sake of unity is not on the minds of any of them.

But that does not stop two-thirds of the world’s Anglican bishops who are gathering in Canterbury. If at the Lambeth Conference they can listen to each other—and to God—long enough, there may be a chance for Archbishop Williams still to build the structures on which future global Anglican coexistence so obviously depends. Global Anglicanism after the Lambeth Conference may still look like a “slow-moving train wreck,” but there is a good chance, under Archbishop Williams, that it will still be on the rails [are we supossed to root for this train wreck to NOT happen? sounds pretty pathetic. The writer clearly doesn't get something.].

BEST QUOTE OF THE ARTICLE (an unintended consequence?)

The gravitational center of Anglicanism has drifted southward, to countries where the church is not part of a liberal political project, and where excessive compromise and nuance mute its proclamation of the Gospel.

Some disturbing quotes from our 'speaker lady'

Smiles for the dictator of Syria's regime.

She hit the national television circuit Monday with her new book, “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters.” Next month, she’ll chair the convention in Denver that will nominate Barack Obama — “the next president of the United States. I feel very certain of that,” Pelosi says.

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

“I respect the office that I hold,” she says. “And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”

Let’s face it, Washington: This speaker is different. She’s the first woman ever to hold the post and a very tough one at that, with a penchant for the mystical.

Notice the obsession with gender and power, and the arrogance to think she can save the planet. Absurd.

Humanae Vitae - 40 years later... a comparison of 2 editorials

"I'm sorry, Mr. Kennedy, but your behavior is totally unacceptable."

What an interesting comparison...
thanks to Fr. Z. for his commentary.

Op-Ed Contributor
The Pope vs. the Pill

By JOHN L. ALLEN Jr.
Published: July 27, 2008

FORTY years ago last week, Pope Paul VI provoked the greatest uproar against a papal edict in the long history of the Roman Catholic Church when he reiterated the church’s ban on artificial birth control by issuing the encyclical “Humanae Vitae.” At the time, commentators predicted that not only would the teaching collapse under its own weight, but it might well bring the “monarchical papacy” down with it.

Those forecasts badly underestimated the capacity of the Catholic Church to resist change and to stand its ground.

Down the centuries, Catholics have frequently groused [excellent word, and it sets a tone…. keep reading] about papal rulings. Usually they channeled that dissent into blithe disobedience, [still setting the tone…] though occasionally a Roman mob would run the Successor of Peter out of town on a rail just to make a point. In 1848, Pope Pius IX was driven into exile by Romans incensed at his refusal to embrace Italy’s unification.

Never before July 25, 1968, however, had opposition been so immediate, so public and so widespread. World-famous theologians called press conferences to rebut the pope’s reasoning. Conferences of Catholic bishops issued statements that all but licensed churchgoers to ignore the encyclical. Pastors openly criticized “Humanae Vitae” from the pulpit. [painting a picture as a backdrop to what is coming up…]

In a nutshell, “Humanae Vitae” held that the twin functions of marriage — to foster love between the partners and to be open to children — are so closely related as to be inseparable. In practice, that meant a resounding no to the pill. [Excellent. Allen actually gives a fair view of the reasoning in Humanae vitae. NB: This wasn’t published in the journal he usually writes for, the NCRep – which had its own dissenting editorial. For the NCRep Humanae vitae was about holding on to power and, digest this, against "real" love.]

The encyclical quickly became seen, both in the secular world and in liberal Catholic circles, as the papacy’s Waterloo. It was so out of sync with the hopes and desires of the Catholic rank and file [too be fair, we have to include the many of the hierarchy] that it simply could not stand.

And in some ways, it didn’t. Today polls show that Catholics, at least in the West, dissent [I am glad he calls it what it is.] from the teaching on birth control, often by majorities exceeding 80 percent.

But at the official level, Catholicism’s commitment to “Humanae Vitae” is more solid than ever. [This use of "official" is not charged with the negativity that it has in the NCRep editorial.]

During his almost 27-year papacy, John Paul II provided a deeper theoretical basis for traditional Catholic sexual morality through his “theology of the body.” In brief, the late pope’s argument was that human sexuality is an image of the creative love among the three persons of the Trinity, as well as God’s love for humanity. Birth control “changes the language” of sexuality, because it prevents life-giving love.

That’s a claim many Catholics might dispute, but the reading groups and seminars devoted to contemplating John Paul’s “theology of the body” mean that Catholics disposed to defend the church’s teaching now have a more formidable set of resources than they did when Paul VI wrote “Humanae Vitae.” [Good point!]

In addition, three decades of bishops’ appointments by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, [A very important factor. I have written about this more than once: this is one of the most important things to consider during the long pontificate of John Paul II.] both unambiguously committed to “Humanae Vitae,” mean that senior leaders in Catholicism these days are far less inclined than they were in 1968 to distance themselves from the ban on birth control, or to soft-pedal it. A striking number of Catholic bishops have recently brought out documents of their own defending “Humanae Vitae.” [I know he is relating facts, here, but I wonder if Allen isn’t quietly arguing that dissent from Humanae vitae is out of step with the present direction of the Church? Namely, if it isn’t a washed up cliche of the "sixties"?]

Advocates of the encyclical draw assurance from the declining fertility rates across the developed world, especially in Europe. No country in Europe has a fertility rate above 2.1, the number of children each woman needs to have by the end of her child-bearing years to keep a population stable. [Perhaps I am unclear about terminology, but do we mean "fertility" rate or "birth" rate? There might also be fertility problems on the rise because of the damage (usually unknown) done by some sexually transmitted diseases, but surely contraception and aboritifcients and abortions are keeping the number of live births very low.]

Even with increasing immigration, Europe is projected to suffer a population loss in the 21st century that will rival the impact of the Black Death, leading some to talk about the continent’s “demographic suicide.” [Well said! An artifically created "Black death" as the consequences of, really it must be said, "dissent" from Humanae vitae’s conclusions in many ways.]

Not coincidentally, Europe is also the most secular region of the world, where the use of artificial contraception is utterly unproblematic. Among those committed to Catholic teaching, the obvious question becomes: What more clear proof of the folly of separating sex and child-bearing could one want? [Hits the nail squarely on the head.]

So the future of “Humanae Vitae” as the teaching of the Catholic Church seems secure, [Because the Church is committed consistently to teach the truth.] even if it will also continue to be the most widely flouted injunction of the church at the level of practice.

The encyclical’s surprising resilience is a reminder that forecasting the Catholic future in moments of crisis is always a dangerous enterprise — a point with relevance to a more recent Catholic predicament. Many critics believe that the church has not yet responded adequately to the recent sex-abuse scandals, leading to predictions that the church will “have to” become more accountable, more participatory and more democratic.

While those steps may appear inevitable today, it seemed unthinkable to many observers 40 years ago that “Humanae Vitae” would still be in vigor well into the 21st century.

Catholicism can and does change, but trying to guess how and when is almost always a fool’s errand. [And some things really can’t be changed.]

John L. Allen Jr. is the senior correspondent for The National Catholic Reporter and the author of “The Rise of Benedict XVI.”

=================================================

Humanae Vitae at 40 years

By NCR Staff
Publication date:
July 25, 2008
Section:
C. Editorials

As we roll through 2008, the press is filled with 40-year anniversary stories. 1968 was a tumultuous year; some say it was a year that helped define America for years to come. [It still divides much of Catholic America, for sure.]

The baby boomers recall vividly the Vietnam War Tet offensive in January; the April assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; the Paris Peace talks and riots in May; the June assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy; and the August protest riots in Chicago at the Democratic convention among nation-shaping events that year.

Catholics might recall another 1968 defining moment, the July 29 encyclical called Humanae Vitae, literally “Of Human Life.” The encyclical was a sensitively written expression about the sanctity of marital love and the need to nurture life in marriage. But whatever else it stated, it has been remembered for only one thing: the upholding of the Catholic church’s ban on birth control.

The encyclical upheld Pope Pius XII’s support of the rhythm method (now called natural family planning) [I think there are significant differences between the old "rhythm method" and modern NFP. However, I think this was put in for a reason. The "rhythm method" was widely derided. So, I am guessing that the intention is to paint NFP with the same brush, so to discredit it. This helps to set up the point down the line.] and in doing so, revealed its particular understanding of natural law. [Did the "rhythm method" have a "particular understanding of natural law"?] Its reasoning, theologians say, rested on the physiological structure of the act of intercourse while largely discounting the larger context of human love and family life.

Less than a decade after the encyclical’s promulgation, polls showed it was overwhelmingly rejected by Catholics. Eight out of 10 adult U.S. Catholics simply disregarded it. While bishops were largely upholding the document, many priests in pastoral settings, including confessionals, were saying it was a matter for individual conscience.

By any measure, a gulf between official church teachings and Catholic practice [Again, watch the word choice. I think "official" is code for "something we don’t really have to pay attention to" because, after all, people who are moved by "the spirit/Spirit" are above that sort of backward view of the Church. All those rules stiffle real Church.] had begun to grow and was to continue to grow and to permeate a host of other Catholic teachings on sexuality and morality from homosexuality to the use of condoms in the fight against the HIV virus. The right of women to have special say in reproduction, then an almost exclusively male terrain, was soon added to the list. [Note the shift to a feminist perspective that pits women again men.]

In the four decades since the encyclical was promulgated, the church hierarchy, fully recognizing Catholic lay resistance to the strongly stated ban on the use of birth control, dug in. Pope John Paul II affirmed Humanae Vitae as a pillar of Catholic morality—as well as a pillar of papal authority. [the NCR just made this into a power issue.]

Meanwhile, Catholic lay confidence in the institution was eroding by the year. [What "institution", the Church? That is the "institutional" dimension of the Church? Otherwise, perhaps the "institution" they are talking about is "papal authority"? The antecedent isn’t entirely clear. However, the intent is clear. NCR is pitting an "official" or "institution" or "rule-bound" hierarchical Church against the lay people who are making up their own minds about things and the priests who advise them.]

Torn between following the advice of a partially lay pontifical commission, created to assess the birth control issue, a commission that eventually supported changes in church teaching, and his desire to remain consistent with earlier papal declarations, Pope Paul VI chose the later course. [Hang on. What about Paul VI’s desire to do the right thing? It wasn’t a simple choice between the past and the future. It was about the truth.] The need to assert church authority persuaded him. [Again, the NCR makes this into a power issue. The purpose is to help the reader over to the position that because the decision had such a (low) motivation, those who are enlivened the "the spirit/Spirit" can discount the teaching of Humanae vitae and other rule-bound official Church teachings about morals because they are, after all, only rooted in the desire to maintain power.]

After all, he reasoned, how could the Holy Spirit have allowed the church to be wrong for so many years on an issue of such importance? [THAT is how they describe Paul VI’s reasoning? How stupid do they think we are?] His decision, in the end, was more indicative of church hierarchical dysfunction—the institution’s inability to look at matters, particularly sexuality, in light of new understandings and insights—than it was seemingly of any movement of the Holy Spirit. [And there it is folks! The "spirit/Spirit" is guiding the enlightened!]

Research conducted by sociologist Fr. Andrew M. Greeley found that the encyclical so shook Catholics that by itself, it would have reduced religious practice by almost one-half. That decline never fully occurred, and the reason it did not, Greeley found, was the favorable impact the Second Vatican Council was having on the lives of most Catholics. [Right. But we are not talking about the actual documents of the Council, but rather the "spirit", again, but this time the "spirit of Vatican II", the breaking of "institutions", the deconstruction of whatever was rule-bound or official.]

Repeated U.S. surveys find that Catholics regard church teachings on sexual morality increasingly out of sync with their lived experience and their understanding of love and intimacy. [You are to conclude from this that whatever conflicts with the majority opinion (the rule-bound institutional Church still trying to keep its grip on power by controling how people have sex) is therefore against love and intimacy.] They knew and still know [Notice the authority they give to this "knowledge". It supercedes "official" Church teaching and any insight or motivation the "hierarchy" might have.] that sex between husband and wife is capable of creating far more than new humans. [Dog bites man.] They also know their gay sons and daughters are not disordered. [Another shot at the Church’s "official teaching" about the nature of homosexual orientation.] The surveys have confirmed Rome’s worst fears, [Remember, for the NCR the " Rome" (a bad thing) is only about men struggling to maintain power.] causing at times even more thunderous condemnations [HUH?] that have failed to win many converts. So the cycle of dysfunction and disbelief continues.

National Catholic Reporter July 25, 2008

1.4-kids-per-household-Germans surprised that Moslems are taking over...

The future German skyline?

First, let's check Germany's birth rates...
Population growth rate: -0.12% (2007 est.)
Birth rate: 8.3 births/1,000 population (2007 est.)

hmmm... whose fault is this?

Not in My Backyard, Say an Increasing Number of Germans

By Jochen Bölsche

The planned construction of over 180 mosques [woah, mama!] in Germany is mobilizing right-wing xenophobes but also an increasing number of leftist critics [right, label them... because Moslems will only kill right wing xenophobes...]. They fear the Muslim places of worship will facilitate the establishment of a completely parallel society.

The issue at hand wasn't the construction of a missile base or a new nuclear power plant. Yet the media reported "turmoil" and an "enraged" audience in a school auditorium in Ehrenfeld, a district of the German city of Cologne. The mood was almost comparable to that of the protest gatherings once held against nuclear missiles or reactors.

Instead the outrage was directed at a huge mosque planned for the area. Still, the words used by the project's opponents called to mind the protests of earlier times. "The minarets even look like missiles," railed one woman [interesting observation...]. A man said the mosque's dome reminded him "of a nuclear plant."

Ill will over mosques like the one being built in Cologne is spreading rapidly throughout Germany, often to the surprise of local politicians. For a long time the establishment of Muslim prayer rooms provoked little protest, housed as they were mostly in residential buildings, shops and back courtyards. Recently, though, there has been an increasing number of acts of protest, some violent. Molotov cocktails were thrown through mosque windows in the Bavarian town of Lauingen; Christians set protest crosses inscribed with "Terra christiana est," or this is Christian land [uh, not any more, fella; you actually have to practice it...], on the grounds of a mosque in Hanover; and construction trailers went up in flames in the Berlin district of Pankow.

The anti-Islam protest movement has also begun to spill over into city politics. In Cologne, for example, the extreme right anti-mosque initiative Pro Cologne captured five local government seats in recent elections. Now the group is aspiring to enter the national scene as Pro Germany, together with other like-minded organizations, some from the far-right fringe [again...]. Their approach follows the example of populist Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, whose anti-immigration party garnered a surprising degree of support before he was murdered in 2002.

In Germany there is also a market for these "single-issue parties," suggests trend researcher Adjiedj Bakas, who himself emigrated from Surinam to the Netherlands. In the populous Ruhr Valley region of western Germany the Voter Initiative Recklinghausen (whose acronym "WIR" is the German word for "we") has found resonance with its message. The group claims it is fighting against "creeping Islamization," and is allied in the local government with the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), one of Germany's major political parties. WIR members say they aren't alone in their opposition to Islam and their concern "that in 20 years in Recklinghausen, as in all large German cities, the majority of the residents under the age of 40 will be Muslims." "Discomfort is already spreading in some parts of the city," says Georg Schliehe, a WIR representative on the local city council, "but policy, public authorities and scholars downplay the problem." [you gotta love how secular liberals hate Christianity so much that they will even legislate themselves into the harsh submission of Islam rather than give up their 'freedoms' from conservative morals... ironically, Islam is more oppressive. Strange.]

Read the whole thing here.

Intersting: A Spiritual Answer to Coping With Infertility

Interview With Professor Marie Meaney

By Karna Swanson

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 25, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The suffering of infertility can be intense for couples, but looking at the condition with the eyes of faith can turn the experience into a "spiritual journey," says professor Marie Meaney.

"Only God can prevent extreme suffering from turning into anger, resentment and bitterness," says Meaney, an Arthur J. Ennis Teaching Fellow at the University of Villanova in Philadelphia.

Meaney, who has been active in the pro-life movement for many years, is also the author of "Embracing the Cross of Infertility," a talk offered online and on CD through the Human Life International Web site.

In this interview with ZENIT, Meaney comments on the challenges facing couples struggling with infertility, and the possible spiritual consolations and rewards of embracing the condition with faith.

Q: You say accepting your infertility is much like accepting the death of a child, and that it is particularly difficult for the woman. What is at the core of this suffering?

Meaney: For those who are not suffering from infertility it may be difficult to imagine how painful it is. Before it happened to me, I had no idea how awful it was. Most couples probably go into marriage thinking that children are a given, that they will simply come along; when they don't, this opens up in a new way how central the gift of life is to marriage and in particular to the woman.

Obviously, the marriage is no less valid if the couple is infertile; but when no child is conceived, the spouses are denied the visible fruit of their love. The spouses desire to see their love embodied in the gift of life; they want to start the adventure of raising children together, seeing in them parts of themselves, and yet also completely unique persons with their own vocations and personalities.

Infertility affects both men and women, but the woman's suffering tends to be particularly pronounced. Already Rachel cried to her husband Jacob in the book of Genesis: "Give me children, or I shall die!" -- Genesis 30:1, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2374.

The woman is the one to experience pregnancy, feeling the child grow in her womb, as Pope John Paul II said so beautifully in "Mulieris Dignitatem," and thus she will also feel more deeply the lack thereof. Since her vocation is motherhood of some kind, she suffers particularly from its absence.

Infertility is terrible for her even if she already has children, but is unable to have more. Except if she knows that the sterility is final, she will go through hope and disappointment every month; and this disappointment comes at a time when it is emotionally and hormonally the most difficult.

Some women feel that their life is on-hold during this time: They are simply waiting for children and in the mean time not much else makes sense. No profession, no successful career can fill the emptiness caused by infertility.

Q: What tips would you give to parents, friends and pastors of an infertile couple? What should they say and not say?

Meaney: As with all suffering, at the core of the response should be the willingness to suffer with the couple, to stand under the cross with them, to be there for them. After all, compassion comes from the Latin word "com-pati," "suffering with." Anything that falls short of that is less than helpful.

Let me give some examples: The spouses may go through a long period of anguish about their childlessness, which to others may seem excessively long. The worst kind of comment is to mention other people whose suffering was supposedly worse, yet who got over it more quickly and grew from it; the implication is that the couple is not meeting that standard and is at fault.

Or, previously infertile people tell the couple that once they had "let go" and had stopped being stressed about their infertility, then they had suddenly conceived. The implication to the infertile spouses is, however, that they are not abandoned to God's will, otherwise they too would be able to conceive; it is therefore their fault in some sense that they are not conceiving.

This is what Job's friends did: They held Job responsible for his suffering. At times we all become like Job's friends: We tend to make those suffering responsible for their pain when it has lasted for a long time; for otherwise we would have to stand under the cross with them.

Seeing other children, being present at baptisms or baby showers can bring out suffering in the infertile couple in a new way. Sometimes people accuse the spouses of being envious while in reality their suffering is simply surfacing in those circumstances.

Generally I'd say, don't be the one to broach the subject. Perhaps the spouses don't want to talk about it or perhaps they are not in pain about it just now. Show an openness to listen compassionately and this will be a deed of mercy.

Q: Is there a point at which a couple should stop trying to conceive? Is adoption for every infertile couple?

Meaney: Every couple must discern for itself how pro-active it wants to be about trying to overcome its infertility. Some simply don't have the financial means to explore new -- albeit ethically licit -- options. Others can't face the emotional strain of continuing to attempt new procedures, the hope and disappointment that comes with it each time. Some need closure and decide to move on, though they would be delighted by the surprise of an unexpected pregnancy.

Personally, I think it is a good idea to think out of the box, try alternative medical options and never to give up. You just never know what might work for you. In any case, it is important to find out the reasons for the infertility in order to find solutions; sometimes the pain is so great that it is hard to face medical tests, and this is where husband and wife should encourage each other.

Adoption, I believe, is a vocation and not every couple feels called to it. Some infertile spouses think they can be fruitful in other ways, and serve the Church in a manner that couples with children can't.

Q: What is the role of a childless couple in promoting a culture of life?

Meaney: On the one hand, the childless couple is in the unfortunate situation that to outsiders it seems to have embraced the contraceptive mentality and the culture of death.

On the other hand, the couple can be a great witness to the world, if it speaks out when appropriate. The spouses can talk about the pain of infertility, about the great gift that children are; if their infertility is due to previous abortions or contraception, this might make others think twice. Or by speaking out against in vitro fertilization (IVF), which might be their only option to have a child, they are a witness to the fact that children are a gift and that no one has a right to them.

Finally, by embracing this cross, the spouses will de facto be promoting the culture of life; by uniting themselves to Christ they are "serving, like Christ, the salvation of [their][…] brothers and sisters," as John Paul II states in "Salvifici Doloris" (No. 27). Only in the next life will they know the extent of their spiritual fruitfulness.

Q: Your essay underlines the spiritual elements of infertility, discussed in terms of a cross to bear. What suggestions would you make as to deal with infertility in a spiritually fruitful way?

Meaney: Looking at infertility through the eyes of faith prevents it from being merely a human disaster and turns it into a spiritual journey. Only God can prevent extreme suffering from turning into anger, resentment and bitterness. However, God does not perform magic; he does not simply take the pain away, nor does he give us the answer to our anguished question, "Why is this happening to me?"

But if we embrace this cross, then ultimately we will find inner peace. A temptation is to meet the challenge stoically, thinking one can "deal with it" without realizing that one is avoiding the cross, and thus denying oneself the necessary mourning period.

Often we think that if we are suffering much, we must be doing something wrong. We have the false conception that being abandoned to God's will means that we will sail through all difficulties and master them in Herculean fashion. But being nailed to the cross means experiencing great anguish, as Christ did; but it will ultimately become our path to salvation if we accept it.

"Do not be afraid," John Paul II exclaimed at the beginning of his pontificate. We are afraid of crosses, of the deaths we experience through them. But God will bless us a hundredfold through them and we will bear fruit for the Church and the world in ways we probably don't even know. In eternity this wound will be part of our glory, shining forth, reflecting God in a particular way. Though we may never have biological children, we will have spiritual children many of whom we will only get to know in heaven.

The future of the Anglican Communion?

Do the Anglicans really think this is going to bolster the faithful????

"Hey, baby, vote for me" [followed by "ga-ga-go-go"]

"Excuse me, sir, um baby. We are wondering if you could wake up and comment on who you voted for today. I'm sorry, but you just spit-up on your sleeve... don't you see it?"

Just when you thought the western world couldn't begin to fall further into insanity... then you read the following:

Dozens of German politicians have tabled a new law to extend voting rights to babies, toddlers, children and teenagers.

The bill, which has won the cross-party backing of some heavyweight German politicians, would wipe away decades of "exclusion" and "discrimination" against minors.

Currently the voting threshold in Germany is 18, with an exception in some states, where 16 year olds able momentarily to put aside the cares of adolescence are allowed to cast a ballot.

But that does not go far enough for the new law's backers, who want to ensure voting rights from cradle to grave. If the bill gets adopted, babies will be equally empowered to voice, or gurgle, their opinion on government handling of macro-economic performance in a global downturn as their parents.

Toddlers able to divert their attention from the nursery brute stealing their crayons will be able to take a stand ­ if they can stand - on issue such as whether German armed forces should be deployed abroad.

According to the head of the liberal Free Democratic Party ­ traditional coalition partner of Chancellor Merkel's CDU party ­ the constitutional change would enfranchise 14 million people.

"Unfortunately in Germany, 17 per cent of the population, namely the children and adolescent, are excluded from political decision making," said FDP chief Dirk Niebel. The Telegraph UK

Here's the link.

"So much for the 'via media' approach, Dr. Williams."

More on the horrid leadership of Dr. Rowan Williams and the crumbling C of E.

This is from Damian Thompson:

Andrew Carey, son of Archbishop Carey, has produced a pretty devastating analysis of Monday night's "train wreck" on the American Anglican website Stand Firm:

"While Dr Williams has often given traditionalists hope that he would back a structural solution to their problems of conscience, he seems to have completely ruled out strong leadership on theological and ecclesial issues. Wearing permanently now, it seems, the persona of the mediator, Dr Williams was seen by Synod trying to have it both ways. 'I am deeply unhappy with any scheme... which ends up structurally humiliating women.' But he was equally unhappy about marginalising traditionalists. [uhhhhh... I want to have my cake and eat it too.] He therefore came 'not very comfortably to the conclusion', we needed a 'more rather than less robust form of structural provision'.

A SAD DAY: Church of England - now officially protestant forever

"We want female bishops not tradition. We want to ape the relativistic mores of the secular 'whatever feels good and is popular now' culture." That's what the C of E bishops voted today.

So much for reconciliation and real ecumenism. The C of E has officially decided to ape the secular culture's superficial ideas of feminism (all about power), and reject its roots with the Catholic/Orthodox churches and Scripture itself. Instead of seeking wisdom from the sources, the C of E will now fade away into time.
I cannot imagine a church shepherded by old women with a large and dynamic sheepfold.
We'll see how quickly the C of E declines... Sad.
The Anglo-Catholics have now been totally alienated, and as Thompson notes below, it would be foolish for them to stay.

Read it and weep.

A couple of hours ago, the Church of England decisively severed itself from its Catholic roots. By voting to ordain women bishops without significant safeguards for traditionalists, it reasserted its identity as a Protestant Church. Whether it will be a liberal or conservative Protestant denomination remains to be seen. But any hope of unity with Rome and the Orthodox has gone forever.

I'm not sorry. From the moment the C of E voted to ordain women priests in 1992, it cut itself off from the Catholic mainstream. But unexpectedly generous safeguards allowed traditionalists to cordon themselves off from the rest of the Church, persuading themselves that they, rather than the main body, preserved its true Catholic identity.

This was always a delusion, and now it is truly unsustainable. The General Synod tonight made a commonsense decision. If you have women priests, you must have women bishops - indeed, I remember Dr David Hope, then Bishop of London, telling me that the Church should in theory have started with women bishops and then moved on to priests. [Good point.]

What the Anglo-Catholics have lost tonight is their standing in the Church of England. They are no longer honoured traditionalists who have been allowed to preserve an (almost) watertight communion of their own, nurtured by powerful bishops who sustain their sacramental purity.

From now on, they will be the C of E's granny in the attic, whose eccentricities are tolerated only at family get-togethers. If, that is, they are silly enough to stay.

What a painful debate this was. This time round, in contrast to 1992, the Synod knew it was demolishing a wing of the building, and there was preciously little triumphalism. Dr Rowan Williams seemed especially crushed: he had argued - reluctantly - for tight safeguards for traditionalists, but the assembly ignored his advice. That doesn't bode well for Lambeth.

Here's what Rowan Williams said before the vote
... pathetic.

Well, I guess we'll see when and how and if traditional/orthodox C of E bishops will break with Canterbury.