Come in! Come in!

"If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a Hope-er, a Pray-er, a Magic Bean buyer; if you're a pretender, come sit by my fire. For we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!" -- Shel Silverstein

Friday, April 18, 2008

The Creed of St. Paul's Confirmation Class 2008


I love Confirmation Class. I love to sit with the kids and discuss the issues of our faith. I love to challenge their thinking. I love the way they challenge my well thought-out and treasured theological positions.

Our class runs a little over 12 months, depending on the diocesan schedule. One of the real delights is that I co-teach the course with Tim Wong, the incomparable Missioner to Youth and Young Families at St. Paul's. He does all the community-building exercises with the kids, takes them on Mission Trips and their required Community Service Projects.

I teach the "stuff" - the meaning of the architecture - why the altar and font are where they are, the shape of the ceiling, etc., all the various vestments, and all the symbols of the church - for example, why we ascribe certain images to the four gospels, We also study the history of the Church in general and The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion in particular. It's all the usual stuff of Confirmation Class.

We also have a component about Human Sexuality, along with other contemporary issues like dating, dress, drugs and alcohol, but we talk about it in terms of making moral and ethical choices.

We give them our cell phone numbers and tell them that if they are ever in a situation where they feel uncomfortable about the choices they are being asked to make, they are to call us and we'll come and pick them up. No questions asked. Their parents know this and agree to it.

What happens after that is really between the kid and his/her parents. The only thing we know is that they made a choice not to make a bad choice, and that's enough. The idea is to keep them safe.

Both Tim and I feel strongly that, other than building a sense of community, none of the other 'standard fare' of Confirmation class makes any sense without helping these kids, who are on the brink of adulthood, to understand the importance and consequences of their choices.

We tell them that they will make mistakes as they test out the boundaries of their lives and faith, but that there is always repentance and forgiveness and the opportunity to make amends and change.

My favorite part of the class is the Creeds. We go over the three in the Prayer Book and then look at the Creeds of other denominations. Then comes the real fun.

Using the Nicene Creed as the basis of faith, we ask them to consider adding their own voices to the ancient voices of the church and write their own Creed. We ask them to consider how they would describe concepts like "the Son of God" and "born of the Virgin Mary" and "the Resurrection" to their contemporaries of the faith.

Once we have broken through the initial, expected resistance ("This is soooo dumb") the conversation can get very spirited. This class was especially so. The biggest challenge is to get everyone to agree on all the wording. After three weeks of negotiation, they finally settled on the following.

The other Very Big Challenge is not to put my words in their mouth, even if I think their Creed could be strengthened by my beliefs. It's their Creed, after all, based solidly in the Creeds of the Church. It's their voice, not mine, and their thinking will change over time, even as mine has. Even so, it's hard to hold back.

We finally finished this in yesterday's class. I am so very proud of them, I could just burst. This Creed will be used at the service we'll have the morning of their Confirmation Day. We also have sweatshirts made which has the St. Paul's logo on the front and their Creed written on the back. This year, they all wanted "hoodies" - in red, with white lettering.

They are not only smart, they have a great sense of style. Here's what they wrote:

The St. Paul’s Confirmation Creed of 2008


We believe in God, the Holy Being and Unseen Spirit
whose presence is felt in all good things around us.
There is no sin too big that cannot be forgiven by God.
We believe there is a piece of God in all of us.

We believe in Jesus, our Teacher and Rabbi
a prophet, messenger and the Lord,
our leader who shows us The Way.
We believe that He loves us with a selfless love,
He died for us and the sins of the world.
He performed many miracles and always puts His people first.
We believe that Jesus lives in each one of us
to spread the word of God’s love in the world.

We believe in the Holy Spirit who is
a gift of the Resurrection of Jesus
and part of the mystery of the Trinity.
We believe that the Holy Spirit lives inside us
to guide us to The Truth. 

We believe that the Church is God’s gift to us:
A sanctuary – a safe place from the world
A Holy place where we can pray
and express what we believe.
A place to find forgiveness and hope.
A place to know Jesus.
We believe that the Church is God’s house,
our home, our community.
now and forever. 
Amen.



Betty Butterfield - Election 2008

Some of you know how much I ADORE Betty Butterfield. If you don't know her, google her and check out what she has to say about Episcopalians. She's the best!

Here she is on the Presidential Elections. I think we ought to start a campaign: Betty Butterfield for President!

Thursday, April 17, 2008

NCR: Pope meets with victims of clerical sexual abuse


Published on National Catholic Reporter Conversation Cafe

Pope Benedict meets with victims of clerical sexual abuse

By John L Allen Jr Daily
Created Apr 17 2008 - 15:50
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Washington, D.C.

In an unexpected and essentially unprecedented move, Pope Benedict XVI met quietly with five victims of clerical sexual abuse this afternoon at the Vatican’s embassy to the United States, located in Washington, D.C.

Prior to this afternoon, no pope had ever met with victims of sexual abuse by priests. That omission has been oft-cited by critics of the church’s response to the crisis as an indication that Rome and the papacy are out of touch with American realities, or in denial about the magnitude of the problem.

All five victims who met with Pope Benedict today are from the Boston area, and sources told NCR that Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston played a role in arranging their encounter with Pope Benedict. In the end, however, those sources say, it was the pope’s choice to take the meeting.

At least some of the victims plan to make a public statement later this afternoon.

The Vatican has issued a statement saying that the meeting took place, and one of the victims who took part, confirmed the meeting for NCR shortly after it concluded.

Benedict is today is wrapping up the first leg of his six-day visit to the United States. He has repeatedly engaged the sexual abuse crisis during this trip, speaking about it for the first time before he even arrived.

“We are deeply ashamed, and we will do all that is possible that this cannot happen in the future,” the pope said in a session with reporters aboard the papal plane Tuesday en route to the United States.

Benedict argued that efforts to address the crisis have to unfold on three levels: the legal and juridical, the pastoral, and programs of prevention to ensure that future priests are “sound.” Pointedly, the pope said that “it’s more important to have good priests than to have many.”

In his address to the American bishops at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on Wednesday evening, he returned to the theme. The pope devoted five full paragraphs to sexual abuse of children, referring to it as “evil” and a “sin.”

In perhaps the most dramatic phrase, the pope conceded, quoting Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. bishops, that the crisis was “sometimes very badly handled.”

The pope pledged the church to pursue healing and reconciliation with those “so seriously wronged.”

Again during his Mass Thursday morning at Washington’s Nationals Park, the pope offered strong language about the crisis.

“I acknowledge the pain which the church in America has experienced as a result of the sexual abuse of minors,” the pope said. “No words of mine could describe the pain and harm inflicted by such abuse.”

The pope went on to ask all American Catholics to “do what you can to foster healing and reconciliation, and to assist those who have been hurt.”

In tandem with his meeting this afternoon, these references suggest a broad desire on the part of the pope to signal to American Catholics that he “gets it” -- meaning that he grasps the depth and gravity of the crisis.

Observers often point out that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was responsible for overseeing the church’s internal judicial process resulting from accusations of sexual abuse against a minor. In that role, the future pope read virtually all of the case files, arguably giving a more detailed “on paper” understanding of the crisis than most American bishops.

By most accounts, Benedict was deeply affected by that experience.

Whether today’s meeting, or Benedict’s repeated public references to the crisis, will ultimately satisfy victims remains to be seen. In an April 17 interview with CNN, David Clohessy of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said that the pope’s rhetoric would ring hollow until it was backed by action.

Specifically, Clohessy called for Benedict to extend the “zero tolerance” policy of the American bishops to the universal church, and for at least a couple of American bishops associated with the crisis to be fired.

Clohessy spoke before news of the pope’s meeting with the five Boston-area victims became public.

Despite the endurance of such question marks, the pope’s forceful language, coupled with today’s meeting, is likely to at least diminish impressions that the pope is “out of touch” with the American situation.

Expectations created by the pope’s language, some observers say, could also make it more difficult for church officials to resist pressure for transparency, including the full disclosure of relevant documents related to allegations of sexual abuse, in the future.

Greed: It's a shame!


In the February 24th edition of Progressive Magazine, historian Howard Zinn is reported as saying that though elections can make a difference - think of the difference between Roosevelt and Hoover in responding to the Depression - usually there isn't that much difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

What matters instead are grassroots movements that pressure elected officials of either party to change.

Zinn cites the actions of farmers after the Revolutionary War, many of them veterans of that war, who couldn't afford to pay their taxes and were in jeopardy of losing their land and homes. They gathered by the thousands at courthouses, refusing to allow their properties to be auctioned.

A movement like that needs to arise in the current mortgage crisis, says Zinn.

I have been intrigued by this quote ever since I read it a few days ago. It's been buzzing around my head like a new fly in spring, appearing from out of nowhere and interrupting my thoughts.

I've been watching the deepening furrowed brows of folks in the check out line at the super market, as they gaze into their carts and realize that they are paying more for less food. You can almost see them wonder if they can afford to put gas in their car for that long weekend trip to the Jersey Shore AND pay their child's orthodontic bill this month.

I've been noticing that the parking lot in front of the local Starbuck's (or "Fivebucks" as we call in in my house) is not as full as the one over at the Dunkin Donuts, and the lines at the Cold Stone Creamery are not as long as at the Dairy Queen.

The owner of the local Cafe tells me that people aren't coming in for an afternoon gourmet pastry and decaf latte like they once used to, but the guy over at the town Pizza Parlor says in his thick Middle Eastern accent that business is not too bad, not as bad as he thought it might be.

People will purchase no-name brands to cut costs. They will stop drinking Starbucks in favor of Dunkin' Donuts coffee to save a few bucks. But, would these same folks organize a political movement to save their homes from foreclosure?

What? You don't think it could happen here, in the affluent white suburbs? Let me tell you that there are more people than you can imagine who live in this town who are two paychecks away from financial disaster. In some ways fear is felt more deeply by those who do not often have it as a companion in life - like, say for example, those who live in the gritty housing projects of my former neighborhood in Newark.

So, will suburbanites suddenly understand the systemic problems of the financial crisis and join together in solidarity with each other to form a grassroots movement to protest the obscenity that has become the mortgage industry?

I'm thinking: Not so much. Don't be expecting any protest rallies or demonstrations about the mortgage foreclosures. Not here. Not in the 'burbs. Even though foreclosures will come. Here. In the 'burbs.

Now, protests in the Cit-tay? You bet! The sistas and brothas be out there soon as the preacha start to sing, "This little light of mine." But, affluent folk from the burb's? Ain't gonna happen. No matter how important or effective it might be.

And, according to Howard Zinn, it's a grassroots movement like that which will ultimately bring the sort of change that will be a benefit to everyone.

If - when - that movement begins by the working poor in the cities, the folks who will benefit the most are the folks in the 'burbs. I suspect it was ever thus

I've been slowly recognizing that what I'm seeing on lots of people's faces, besides anxiety and concern. It's this: shame.

I've been thinking that the shame of the anticipated loss of the status of being a homeowner is a very powerful force - even more powerful, in some ways, than the actual loss of one's home. I suspect the shame of anticipating the loss of one's home is more powerful than the energy it would take to actually admit to the anger necessary to form a "grassroots movement that pressure elected officials of either party to change."

But, I've been thinking that the real shame is the greed that is driving up gas prices, and the cost of food. It's that same greed that charges $4 for a cup of coffee that also fuels the seduction of the appearance of status and the illusion of affluence.

Bottom line: it's just a cuppa joe in a cardboard cup. But, it looks so much better - YOU look so much better - sitting on the benches outside the classroom, waiting for your son to finish his private session at the Kumon Learning Center with a cup that is obviously Starbuck's Coffee as opposed to a cup emblazoned with the Mac Donald's Golden Arches, which tastes far better anyway, in my estimation, but it is, after all, 'only' from "Mickey D's".

Greed feeds on greed and feeds greed, which is insatiable. Allowed to feed itself unabated, at some point, greed sparks the flame of arrogance and begins to build a bonfire of vanity and false sense of security.

We call that 'conspicuous consumption.'

Shame is different, of course, except for the fact that it does grow deeper the more one loses economic status or slips lower even in the perception of place on the social ladder. At some point, however, shame can spark the flames of anger and the bonfires of violence and destruction begin to be built.

We call that 'social revolution.'

Does an over-abundance of conspicuous consumption lead, necessarily to social revolution? Is a grassroots movement which leads to systemic change more effective than a political process?

Greed and shame. Does the impulse for greed arise, in part, out of a defense against shame? Are they just different sides of the same coin? Is one fuel for the other?

This is a theological reflection. These are theological questions.

I'll let you figure out why.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Pope: "Deeply Ashamed."

Yeah, well, he ought to be. That's a good place to start.

Next up: he ought to be ashamed of his own ignorance with regard to human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. Pedophiles are overwhelmingly heterosexual. To continue to scapegoat gay men is a continued embarrassment from a leader in the Christian church. Oh, and then we can move on to reproductive rights.

I know. I know. I'm moving too fast for the poor old guy. Deep sigh. I guess embarrassed is one small step forward for the pontiff, one 1/2 of one baby toe forward for LGBT people. It was ever thus in the institutional church.

Oh, and look! There's the embarrassed Man of God with Our National Embarrassment. Quite a statement, eh?

April 16, 2008
NY Times: THE POPE'S VISIT


Pope, in U.S., Is ‘Ashamed’ of Pedophile Priests

By IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

WASHINGTON — Pope Benedict XVI chose to address bluntly the sex scandal that has torn at the church here even before he landed Tuesday on his first official visit to the United States, saying he was “deeply ashamed” by the actions of pedophile priests.

His comments aboard his plane, in answer to a written question submitted by a reporter and selected by the Vatican, appeared to soothe many Catholics but left others demanding more action than words.

“It’s difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betrayed in this way their mission to give healing, to give the love of God to these children,” the pope said, adding that the church would work to exclude pedophiles from the priesthood.

“It is more important to have good priests than to have many priests,” he said.

The words were his strongest ever on the issue, one he clearly wanted to emphasize as he arrived on a six-day visit to Washington and New York. His comments were in response to the first of four questions he answered on the plane — chosen from 20 the press corps had submitted in advance.

It was unclear whether these would be the last words from Benedict on the issue, which ruptured the faith between parishioners and priests and has cost the church some $2 billion, or whether it was an opening signal of both reconciliation and more to come. Church officials have said they expected the pope to address the scandal more than once during his visit, and there is speculation that he may even meet with some victims.

But victims’ advocates clearly were not satisfied by the comments.

“He talks about feeling shame for the scandal but it’s a far cry from the shame that victims have had to live with our entire lives,” said Becky Ianni, 50, who said she was abused by her parish priest in Alexandria, Va., from age 9 to 11.

She was speaking at a vigil outside St. Dominic Church in Washington when the pope’s plane landed just before 4 p.m. Those at the vigil held a long vinyl banner with photographs of more than 60 children abused by priests. They explained that the 15 or so faces that were framed with black boxes were those of victims who had committed suicide.

“We don’t really need his sense of shame,” Ms. Ianni said. “We need him to take firm actions to correct the situation.”

The pope might actually be signaling that he was close to authorizing a change in canon law that would explicitly bar sexual abusers from the priesthood, said Nicholas P. Cafardi, dean emeritus of Duquesne Law School. A civil and canon lawyer, Mr. Cafardi was an original member of the National Review Board appointed by the American bishops at the height of the abuse scandal, in 2002.

There is a section in the church’s Code of Canon law that specifies that a man cannot be ordained a priest, or cannot remain a priest, if he has committed certain acts, like homicide, self-mutilation, attempted suicide or procuring an abortion, said Mr. Cafardi, the author of “Before Dallas: The U.S. Bishops’ Response to Clergy Sexual Abuse of Children” (Paulist Press, 2008).

“It’s time to add to that list pedophilia and sexual abuse of children,” Mr. Cafardi said. “I’m reading Benedict’s remarks as heading toward a change in the law of the universal church, so that this can be implemented throughout the Catholic world.”

He said it was unlikely that the pope would use a papal visit to announce a change in canon law. But, he added: “He’s raised expectations now, and he’s not an unkind person. You don’t raise expectations to bash them.”

Mathew N. Schmalz, an associate professor of religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit institution in Worcester, Mass., said Benedict’s remarks on the plane were significant because they represented a change in tone.

“He was reputed, at least during the tenure of John Paul II, to be uncomfortable with the church apologizing for the sins of its past,” Professor Schmalz said. “But quite clearly, here he is offering if not a mea culpa, then a sincere statement of regret for what happened, and taking responsibility for the church’s role.”

The timing of the pope’s remarks is also important, Professor Schmalz said.

“He’s putting it out there right away, and so he is setting the tone,” he said. “He recognizes there is no way for him to avoid this issue, so he’s addressing it.”

Benedict is the third pope to travel to the United States. Pope Paul VI visited once, in 1965; John Paul II made seven trips to the United States.

President Bush traveled to Andrews Air Force Base to meet Benedict, whose visit is clearly an event of some pomp and great celebration for many of America’s 64 million Catholics.

The white-haired pope, dressed in his traditional white vestments and red shoes, stepped off the Alitalia Boeing 777 and greeted a crowd with a two-handed salute. Because of the wind, he had taken off his zucchetto, his white skullcap, and carried it until he reached the red carpet, where President Bush, his wife, Laura, and daughter Jenna were waiting.

Several hundred spectators waved yellow and white Vatican pennants and sang “Happy Birthday” to Benedict, a native of Germany who turns 81 on Wednesday.

Neither the pope nor the president made any public comments, and the pope retired immediately to the residence of the nuncio, the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States.

The official meeting between the pope and the president is scheduled for Wednesday morning at the White House. Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, told reporters here that the president and pope would discuss human rights, fighting extremism in the Muslim world, Lebanon and hunger in Africa.

On the plane, the pope said he also planned to raise the issue of immigration, contentious in America, but on which the Vatican has clear opinions. Among his concerns, he said, is the “grave problem of separation of families.”

“This really is dangerous to the fabric — social, moral, human — of these countries,” he said, adding that where it was possible to reunite families, it should be done.

In the longer-term, the pope said, the solution is creating enough development in poor countries “so there would be no need to immigrate because there would be sufficient jobs.”

“On this point I will also speak with the president because, above all, the United States must help countries to develop themselves in the interests of everyone, not only of these countries but of the world and even the United States,” he said.

The Vatican did not signal that Iraq — an issue on which the Vatican and the Bush administration have disagreed — would be part of the agenda.

Ms. Perino said she did not expect it to be brought up. “Obviously there was a difference of opinion back in 2003 and beyond, in subsequent years,” she said. “But now I think that there is an understanding that with the strategy that’s working in Iraq right now, the most important thing we can do is help to solidify the situation.”

After three days in Washington during which he will meet with Catholic educators and celebrate Mass at Nationals Park, he will travel to New York on Friday to address the United Nations.

On the plane, he said he would speak on the importance of human rights.

Benedict, who has often spoken favorably about how Americans observe their religious beliefs, was also asked, on the plane, whether he felt America could serve as a model for a Europe, which is far more secularized.

“Certainly Europe can’t simply copy the United States,” he said. “We have our own history.” But he said the United States was interesting because it “started with the positive idea of secularism.”

“This new people was made of communities that had escaped official state purges and wanted a lay state, a secular state that opened the possibility for all confessions and all form of religious exercise,” he added. “Therefore it was a state that was intentionally secular. It was the exact opposite of state religion, but it was secular out of love for religion and for an authenticity that can only be lived freely.”

Ian Urbina contributed to this report.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

More Monkee Business


Once upon a time, on a television set on another planet in another galaxy, far, far away in a little hamlet called Long, Long Ago, in the Valley called "Pleasant" there were four young men who were fairly mediocre musicians and actors.

Some say that it was the beginning of the end of The Age of Innocence.

These fab four (oh, wait - that was another group) had a very popular program on television called: "The Monkees," which earned them fame and fortune some will attest was quite undeserved.

Some of us were very young, mere babes, then. We have a very vague recollection of this show, but our parents and friends (damn their sinful and viscous hearts) remind us of their music.

Time passed, as it always does, and the Monkees grew up to be Primates . . .no, no. Not THAT kind of Primate (although the Anglican Communion would no doubt fare better for it).

They are now full grown men, some of whom, so unlike the rest of us, refuse to grow up. They continue to tour and play their music at State Fairs and in Supper Clubs where Aged Yuppies wax nostalgic about "the good old days," and annoy some of us by persisting in singing the songs they made famous.

Just in case you weren't feeling old enough today, here are the Monkees, then and now:

Michael (Mike) Nesmith THEN

Michael Nesmith NOW


Davy Jones THEN

Davy Jones NOW


Peter Tork THEN

Peter Tork NOW


Okay, visual alert. The following picture may either make you ill or break your heart, depending on the amount of affection and nostalgia you still hold in your heart. You have been warned:


Mickey Dolenz THEN

Mickey Dolenz NOW


Alas, it was ever thus. Some of us, like good wine, age better than others.

You know, to tell the truth, I didn't even like the Monkees much, but like so many of the rest of you, I can sing almost every word to almost every song they ever recorded.

Fame. It's an interesting thing, no?

Thank goodness, for some of us, that's one worry that won't concern us.

Just age. (Can you tell I have a birthday this month?)

The leak in the balloon


Don't miss Susan Russell's essay, "So What?" over at her blog "An Inch at A Time" wherein she begins:

"The hot air balloon with the "Anglican Covenant or Bust" sign across it has sprung a slow leak. The urgent voices insisting we must all climb aboard "or else" have dwindled to a marginal few. And the rest of the Anglican Communion seems to paying attention as never before to just exactly what it is that makes us the “Anglican” Communion."


You can find the rest of her analysis, filled with her usual sharp-wit, along with some links to audio recordings of the various presentations at the General Theological Seminary website.

Well done, my sister. Well done.

WAGES OF WAR

$500 billion: 
Projected total cost of medical care for U.S. veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq wars.


1:1: 
Ration of this expense to total military spending on both wars to date


1 in 4: 
Chance that an Iraq war veteran who has served two or more tours now has post-traumatic stress disorder


102: 
Number of confirmed suicides in U.S. Army in 2006


Harper's Magazine (February)
as reported in Christian Century, March 25, 2008

Monday, April 14, 2008

You're only as old as you feel


Okay, boys and girls (of a certain age), here's today's "pop" quiz.

Who is this man?


a. The Ambassador of Germany.

b. The Financial Manager at a Volvo Dealership.

c. The Maitre d' at The Four Seasons.

d. The Director of a Funeral Home.



Circle one answer. You have five minutes.

Somebody cue the Jeopardy theme.

Remember to answer in the form of a question.


Okay, all pencils down.

How did you do?

Ready for the answer?

No you're not, but here it is anyway.








Hey, hey, he's a Monkee. People say he monkied around. But he was too busy singin' to put anybody down.

Now how old do you feel?

BTW, his mother invented "White Out" - something else that is rapidly going the way of the Dodo Bird.

Monday, Monday . . . GROAN!

Note: From this morning's NY Times. Some people will have to make the impossible choice between gas for their car, food on their table or medicine to keep them alive and well. What's that old saying about pornography? I can't define it but I know it when I see it. Sort of puts all the Anglican drama into perspective, eh?

April 14, 2008
Co-Payments for Expensive Drugs Soar
By GINA KOLATA

Health insurance companies are rapidly adopting a new pricing system for very expensive drugs, asking patients to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for prescriptions for medications that may save their lives or slow the progress of serious diseases.

With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug’s actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month.

The system means that the burden of expensive health care can now affect insured people, too.

No one knows how many patients are affected, but hundreds of drugs are priced this new way. They are used to treat diseases that may be fairly common, including multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, hemophilia, hepatitis C and some cancers. There are no cheaper equivalents for these drugs, so patients are forced to pay the price or do without.

Insurers say the new system keeps everyone’s premiums down at a time when some of the most innovative and promising new treatments for conditions like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis can cost $100,000 and more a year.

But the result is that patients may have to spend more for a drug than they pay for their mortgages, more, in some cases, than their monthly incomes.

The system, often called Tier 4, began in earnest with Medicare drug plans and spread rapidly. It is now incorporated into 86 percent of those plans. Some have even higher co-payments for certain drugs, a Tier 5.

Now Tier 4 is also showing up in insurance that people buy on their own or acquire through employers, said Dan Mendelson of Avalere Health, a research organization in Washington. It is the fastest-growing segment in private insurance, Mr. Mendelson said. Five years ago it was virtually nonexistent in private plans, he said. Now 10 percent of them have Tier 4 drug categories.

Private insurers began offering Tier 4 plans in response to employers who were looking for ways to keep costs down, said Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents most of the nation’s health insurers. When people who need Tier 4 drugs pay more for them, other subscribers in the plan pay less for their coverage.

But the new system sticks seriously ill people with huge bills, said James Robinson, a health economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “It is very unfortunate social policy,” Dr. Robinson said. “The more the sick person pays, the less the healthy person pays.”

Traditionally, the idea of insurance was to spread the costs of paying for the sick.

“This is an erosion of the traditional concept of insurance,” Mr. Mendelson said. “Those beneficiaries who bear the burden of illness are also bearing the burden of cost.”

And often, patients say, they had no idea that they would be faced with such a situation.

It happened to Robin Steinwand, 53, who has multiple sclerosis.

In January, shortly after Ms. Steinwand renewed her insurance policy with Kaiser Permanente, she went to refill her prescription for Copaxone. She had been insured with Kaiser for 17 years through her husband, a federal employee, and had had no complaints about the coverage.

She had been taking Copaxone since multiple sclerosis was diagnosed in 2000, buying 30 days’ worth of the pills at a time. And even though the drug costs $1,900 a month, Kaiser required only a $20 co-payment.

Not this time. When Ms. Steinwand went to pick up her prescription at a pharmacy near her home in Silver Spring, Md., the pharmacist handed her a bill for $325.

There must be a mistake, Ms. Steinwand said. So the pharmacist checked with her supervisor. The new price was correct. Kaiser’s policy had changed. Now Kaiser was charging 25 percent of the cost of the drug up to a maximum of $325 per prescription. Her annual cost would be $3,900 and unless her insurance changed or the drug dropped in price, it would go on for the rest of her life.

“I charged it, then got into my car and burst into tears,” Ms. Steinwand said.

She needed the drug, she said, because it can slow the course of her disease. And she knew she would just have to pay for it, but it would not be easy.

“It’s a tough economic time for everyone,” she said. “My son will start college in a year and a half. We are asking ourselves, can we afford a vacation? Can we continue to save for retirement and college?”

Although Kaiser advised patients of the new plan in its brochure that it sent out in the open enrollment period late last year, Ms. Steinwand did not notice it. And private insurers, Mr. Mendelson said, can legally change their coverage to one in which some drugs are Tier 4 with no advance notice.

Medicare drug plans have to notify patients but, Mr. Mendelson said, “that doesn’t mean the person will hear about it.” He added, “You don’t read all your mail.”

Some patients said they had no idea whether their plan changed or whether it always had a Tier 4. The new system came as a surprise when they found out that they needed an expensive drug.

That’s what happened to Robert W. Banning of Arlington, Va., when his doctor prescribed Sprycel for his chronic myelogenous leukemia. The drug can block the growth of cancer cells, extending lives. It is a tablet to be taken twice a day — no need for chemotherapy infusions.

Mr. Banning, 81, a retired owner of car dealerships, thought he had good insurance through AARP. But Sprycel, which he will have to take for the rest of his life, costs more than $13,500 for a 90-day supply, and Mr. Banning soon discovered that the AARP plan required him to pay more than $4,000.

Mr. Banning and his son, Robert Banning Jr., have accepted the situation. “We’re not trying to make anybody the heavy,” the father said.

So far, they have not purchased the drug. But if they do, they know that the expense would go on and on, his son said. “Somehow or other, myself and my family will do whatever it takes. You don’t put your parent on a scale.”

But Ms. Steinwand was not so sanguine. She immediately asked Kaiser why it had changed its plan.

The answer came in a letter from the federal Office of Personnel Management, which negotiates with health insurers in the plan her husband has as a federal employee. Kaiser classifies drugs like Copaxone as specialty drugs. They, the letter said, “are high-cost drugs used to treat relatively few people suffering from complex conditions like anemia, cancer, hemophilia, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and human growth hormone deficiency.”

And Kaiser, the agency added, had made a convincing argument that charging a percentage of the cost of these drugs “helped lower the rates for federal employees.”

Ms. Steinwand can change plans at the end of the year, choosing one that allows her to pay $20 for the Copaxone, but she worries about whether that will help. “I am a little nervous,” she said. “Will the next company follow suit next year?”

But it turns out that she won’t have to worry, at least for the rest of this year.

A Kaiser spokeswoman, Sandra R. Gregg, said on Friday that Kaiser had decided to suspend the change for the program involving federal employees in the mid-Atlantic region while it reviewed the new policy. The suspension will last for the rest of the year, she said. Ms. Steinwand and others who paid the new price for their drugs will be repaid the difference between the new price and the old co-payment.

Ms. Gregg explained that Kaiser had been discussing the new pricing plan with the Office of Personnel Management over the previous few days because patients had been raising questions about it. That led to the decision to suspend the changed pricing system.

“Letters will go out next week,” Ms. Gregg said.

But some with the new plans say they have no way out.

Julie Bass, who lives near Orlando, Fla., has metastatic breast cancer, lives on Social Security disability payments, and because she is disabled, is covered by insurance through a Medicare H.M.O. Ms. Bass, 52, said she had no alternatives to her H.M.O. She said she could not afford a regular Medicare plan, which has co-payments of 20 percent for such things as emergency care, outpatient surgery and scans. That left her with a choice of two Medicare H.M.O’s that operate in her region. But of the two H.M.O’s, her doctors accept only Wellcare.

Now, she said, one drug her doctor may prescribe to control her cancer is Tykerb. But her insurer, Wellcare, classifies it as Tier 4, and she knows she cannot afford it.

Wellcare declined to say what Tykerb might cost, but its list price according to a standard source, Red Book, is $3,480 for 150 tablets, which may last a patient 21 days. Wellcare requires patients to pay a third of the cost of its Tier 4 drugs.

“For everybody in my position with metastatic breast cancer, there are times when you are stable and can go off treatment,” Ms. Bass said. “But if we are progressing, we have to be on treatment, or we will die.”

“People’s eyes need to be opened,” she said. “They need to understand that these drugs are very costly, and there are a lot of people out there who are struggling with these costs.”

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Good Shepherd Sunday


Jesus as the Good Shepherd from the early Christian catacomb of Domitilla/Domatilla (Crypt of Lucina - 200 CE).

“. . . and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.”
John 10:1-10
IV Easter – April 13, 2008
The Episcopal Church of St. Paul, Chatham
(the Rev’d) Elizabeth Kaeton, rector and pastor

The Church calendar marks this fourth Sunday of Easter aside as “Good Shepherd Sunday”. Today, in honor of Jesus, the Good Shepherd, we are beginning what I hope will be a red-letter day of tradition in this church. Today we will lift up and honor all those who are called to the important ministry of the church known as Eucharistic Ministers and Visitors.

Eucharistic Ministers and Visitors administer the bread and the wine at the communion rail as well as bring the sacred elements of the Eucharist to those who cannot be here with us because of illness or infirmity.

It is an ancient ministry, one practiced by the Early Church from its earliest times. We catch a glimpse of it in today’s lesson from the Book of Acts. As anyone who is a Eucharistic Minister or Visitor can tell you, this ministry provides spiritual nourishment not only to those who receive it, but also to those who administer the sacrament at the altar or the bedside.

I want to touch on this aspect of ministry by focusing in, for a moment on these words of Jesus, “. . .and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.” I don’t know if it’s true, but I remember being taught, as a very young nurse, that the sense of hearing is the last to leave the body at the time of death.

The nuns taught us to be very careful what we said as we tended to the dying, and instructed us to encourage family members to speak to their loved one, even if s/he could not respond. – even after the moment of death.

As one who has impaired hearing, I have come to learn that hearing is not something one does with one’s ears. The ears are simply the vehicle of hearing. One actually hears with one’s brain. Which may be the reason hearing is one of the pathways to deep memory. We not only recognize voices, but we remember things associated with voices – vivid memories of celebration or sadness. The sound of emotion – laughter, tears, fear, joy – triggers other occasions, other experiences, and informs, shapes and deepens our present experience.

It was ten years ago last month that my father died, but there are times that I can hear his voice as if he were still here. I do not have many happy memories of my father, but one of the clearest memories may well be one of the oldest. It’s what I have come to call my father’s “Penny Voice.” I’ll explain.

I must have been four or five years old when I got the Measles. Kids don’t get the Measles any more. There are vaccines to prevent that childhood disease, and I am glad of it. All these many years later, I can vividly remember the misery of it – the fever, the dull, constant ache in the bones, the sensitivity in my eyes to light, the horrible, burning itch. It was dreadful. Absolutely dreadful.

I was the eldest of four, and we were all less than two years apart in age. My brother was a very sickly child and we had no medical insurance. In the way of childhood diseases, I suspect we three kids all had the Measles, all at the same time. My mother was pregnant with my youngest sister.

My father was working double shifts at the factory just to help make ends meet, so I don’t remember seeing a great deal of him as a young child, but I have a very clear memory of him in the midst of my worst moment with the Measles.

I remember lying alone in my bed late at night, too sick to call out for help. My body was hot and feverish and there wasn’t one place that did not burn and sting and itch but I was too week to even attempt to scratch. My mouth was so dry it felt like cotton; my tongue was stuck to the roof of my mouth. I needed a drink of water, but I was too weak to get it for myself. I couldn’t cry, but whimpered.

My mother must have been overwrought, taking care of her pregnant self and tending to three small children under the age of five, but I couldn’t have had that kind of awareness then. I just felt sick and abandoned. Whatever I knew of God in my tiny child’s mind and imagination, I tried to call out to Him for help. I think that may have been my first real experience of prayer, despite my faithful attendance at daily mass with my grandmother..

Suddenly, my father appeared in my room, perhaps just home from work and sent in by my mother to check on me. I was relieved and grateful, but too sick to move. The only thing I could muster was a pathetic whimper that escaped from my throat that sounded less than what I meant to say. “Daddy,” I whimpered.

The sound of my voice melted my father’s heart right in front of me. He gasped out loud and put his hand over his mouth as he walked toward me.

My father knelt down at my bedside and as his face came closer to mine, I could see that he was crying. “It’s okay, sweetheart,” he murmured. “Daddy’s here.”

And, with that, he swooped me up in his arms and took me into the bathroom where he soaked my body in a tepid bath of baking soda and water.

I remember feeling instant relief as he pressed baking soda compresses onto the angry red blotches that covered my body. But, it was his words, the sound of his voice, which washed over me like healing oil. “It’s okay, sweetheart,” he said, over and over, “Daddy’s here. It’s okay.”

I said this was my father’s “Penny voice”. My father had several voices – the “Warning voice which was something akin to a low growl. He also had what I called his “St. John’s Athletic Club voice.” – which was where he went to have a few beers with the guys. That voice was always the prelude to the “Angry voice” which lead to All Things Unpleasant.

After my father dried off my body and dabbed cool, calamine lotion on my Measles, he started to sing to me, softly. My father was not a lullaby kind of guy, so the song he sang to us as babies would most likely be his favorite song of the moment. I have a clear memory of my father walking a teething youngest sister while singing, “Your cheatin’ heart.” (You’d have to know my father to understand.) He was singing it, however, in his “Penny voice.”

My father’s lullaby to me that night was this:

“Every time it rains it rains, pennies from heaven. 
Don’t you know each cloud contains, pennies from heaven. 
You’ll find your fortune falling all over town. 
Make sure that your umbrella is upside down. 
Save them for a packet of sunshine and flowers. 
If you want the things you love, there must be showers. 
So if you hear it thunder don’t run under a tree. 
There’ll be pennies from heaven for you and me.”

All these years later, whenever I hear that song, I cannot hear it without remember my father’s voice. I cannot hear that song without connecting it to my father’s love. For me, that song is an association with an answer to one of my first memories of an experience of prayer. I was quite certain that God had sent my father into my room – wonder of wonders and miracles of miracles – to care for me in my misery.

I know the sound of the voice of God because I heard it that night in my room. I know the voice of kindness and mercy of God, and the comfort and healing of Jesus because I heard it once in my father’s “Penny voice.” I understand now that that voice, that song-as-lullaby, has shaped and formed me in more ways than I can fathom – including my theology, my sense of hope, my faith, indeed, my vocation.

Which is what I want to say to you about the importance of the ministry of those who administer the Eucharistic Sacrament. When you hold up the wafer and say to someone, “The Body of Christ,” they are able to say, “Amen” because they hear in you the sound of Christ’s voice and they are able to follow.

Your voice will be one of the ones people will remember when Jesus welcomes them into heaven. Those to whom you minister will know the voice of Jesus because they have come to know your voice. The real miracle of this ministry, however, is that you will know the sound of the voice of Jesus in the grateful sound of their “Amen.”

Whenever the voice of mercy and kindness and compassion is spoken, whenever the sound of gratitude and love are heard, the voice of Jesus speaks. Who could resist those sounds? Whose ears to not strain to hear that voice that promises life abundant in green pastures?

And follow.

Amen.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Mark Oakley: "An issue! An issue! We all fall down"


A vision of a multifaceted Church? Noah’s Ark by Edward Hicks (1846)

From today's CHURCH TIMES (UK)

Those who would divide the Communion lack an Anglican spirit, says Mark Oakley

THE Revd Rod Thomas wrote to this newspaper that “there are only really two sides to the current controversy over human sexuality . . . there is no room for middle ground” (Letters, 14 March). So far, media commentators have interpreted the division in the Anglican Communion in the same vein — as being between “conservatives” and “liberals”.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been mocked as the compromised referee, who ends up managing the ecclesiastical equivalent of herding cats at the Lambeth Conference. The rest of the Church becomes anxious about which side is gaining the upper hand in Synods, councils, and on the bench of bishops. The result is that, as Churchill noted, keeping your ear to the ground means you can’t see very far from down there. To be focused more on our purity than our purpose leads to paralysis.

The division, however, is not really between conservatives and liberals at all. It is much more serious than that. It is a division between, first, those who are willing to say that other Christians, who have different views or lifestyles to themselves, are still, nevertheless, Christian, and have a Christian integrity that must be part of the Church; and, second, those who think that this simply cannot and must not be the case.

Following the first approach, and contrary to much reporting, there are Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals, conservatives, liberals, radicals, and everything in between — all knowing where they stand, but, in generosity of spirit, acknowledging the different but faithful approaches to the Bible, tradition, and reasoning that there are legitimately other than their own.

These people believe that the Church is a Noah’s ark, where every animal has to budge over in the straw to let someone else nestle down. This is a Church where friendships count for more than sound-bites, and which understands that something of God is shadowed every time a believer forgets that Christian faith is an exercise in humility. This has been the Anglican spirit at its best — with a resistance to over-definition of doctrine, in preference to worshipping together in common prayer.

The second approach, however, challenges this spirit. It argues that there is only one way to interpret scripture or tradition on the issues that are presenting themselves, and that all other views are in error and should not be given any oxygen. Some bishops feel so strongly about this that they cannot even meet in conversation and prayer those fellow bishops with whom they so profoundly disagree. An irony emerges: those who argue so fiercely for family values do not set a good example of how to be a family. Communion needs communication.

I was ordained 15 years ago, and, over these few years, I have found myself increasingly worried about the climate change of the Church.

I was ordained next to remarkable people, with whom I disagreed theologically, but I felt then, as I do now, that by ordaining all of us — asking us the same questions of intent, requiring of us the same assent and declarations in a liturgy in which the Creed was jointly recited — the Church of England was both drawing life from its historical inheritance, and maintaining its passion for balance in proclaiming the gospel afresh. We shared communion together from the start; for, as the New Testament is keen to point out, fear of contagion is not a Christian fear.

Those who want a Church of strict uniformity will say that behind all the issues that currently divide us lies the primary topic of how the Bible is interpreted, and that what are often referred to as secondary issues are not.

Again, something of the traditional Anglican spirit is under attack here. The Anglican tradition has sought to be a scholarly, reflective, and intellectually honest one. It has therefore known that reading the Bible as a community and taking it seriously — honouring the many genuine historical and interpretative questions that are simply there — will inevitably lead to more than one conclusion.

It is not so much that the Bible neatly answers all our questions, as that it questions all our answers. Its treasures are not yielded up overnight, at whim, or as ammunition. The only ultimate uniformity on offer is the constant fidelity of God towards us all.

The boundaries of our theological thinking have been placed on the table for us long ago. Scripture is read, tradition received, sacramental worship offered, and apostolic ministry retained. To agree then that some of our dividing issues today are adiaphora, “things indifferent”, might be a provisional understanding, but I would argue that it is urgently necessary.

A little self-reflection might be important. I cannot be the only person who, since my confirmation at the age of 11, has found himself changing thoughts and opinions on almost everything as the years pass. In those years, though, the Church of England has been large enough to be my home — a spiritual compass, not a dictator telling me with whom I cannot meet or pray.

In 1930, the Lambeth Conference concluded that Anglicans stand for “an open Bible, a pastoral priesthood, a common worship, a standard of conduct consistent with that worship and a fearless love of truth”. My fear is that those who would now homogenise our Church place some of these at severe risk.

This is not about conservatives and liberals. It is about the survival of the Anglican soul. There is middle ground — and it is where we should all be at times, for the sake of one another and the message of reconciliation entrusted to us.

The Ven. Mark Oakley is Archdeacon of Germany and Northern Europe.

"As the Anglican Covenant Turns" (or spins . . . or churns . . . ): Day II

Tune in for the second installment of the goings-on across the Hudson and Passaic and get Susan Russell's report on Day II of the Anglican Covenant Conference at the TuTu Center at General Theological Seminary in NYC.

Here's a snippet of Susan's report on a presentation by Dr. Jenny Te Paa:


I will not attempt to relay her whole message here ... but key for many in the room was Dr. Te Paa's confession that she had reconsidered her initial support for "a covenant process" as a result of her experience since the Windsor Report was issued and declared herself to be "both proud and embarrassed by the naivete" that kept her from recognizing, at the time of the Lambeth Commission, just how much "power politics" were in play in pushing an "agenda for domination" by insisting that "what we already had in place was not sufficient" and shifting to "bullying rhetoric used to exploit differences over human sexuality" into what Dr. Te Paa called: sudden onset arch-episcopal paroxysm.

A way to "cure" that disease, she suggested, was to enlist the aid of those not impacted by the syndrome. Dr. Te Paa went onto suggest that the combination of women, young people, indigenous peoples and LGBT folk between them (by her math) who do not see the current differences as "irresolvable differences" came to approximately 75.3% of the Communion ... and that this significant majority of Anglicans needed to be part of a "slowed down, measured & considered process of inviting more stakeholders in the conversations about what it means to be in covenant relationship with each other as Anglicans" offering what she called "a Good News cure" to sudden onset arch-episcopal paroxysm.

She rocked.

Dick Cavett: Memo to Petraeus and Crocker


April 11, 2008, 6:20 pm NY Times

Memo to Petraeus & Crocker: More Laughs, Please

Once again it is time to bid aloha to that sober team of mirthless entertainers, Petraeus & Crocker.

It’s hard to imagine where you could find another pair of such sleep-inducing performers.

I can’t look at Petraeus — his uniform ornamented like a Christmas tree with honors, medals and ribbons — without thinking of the great Mort Sahl at the peak of his brilliance. He talked about meeting General Westmoreland in the Vietnam days. Mort, in a virtuoso display of his uncanny detailed knowledge — and memory — of such things, recited the lengthy list (”Distinguished Service Medal, Croix de Guerre with Chevron, Bronze Star, Pacific Campaign” and on and on), naming each of the half-acre of decorations, medals, ornaments, campaign ribbons and other fripperies festooning the general’s sternum in gaudy display. Finishing the detailed list, Mort observed, “Very impressive!” Adding, “If you’re twelve.”

(As speakers, both Petraeus and Crocker are guilty of unbearable sesquipedalianism, a word wickedly inflicted on me by my English-teaching mother. It’s one of those words that is what it says. From the Latin, literally “using foot-and-a-half-long words.” We all learned the word for words that sound like what they say — like “click” or “pop” or “boom” or “hiss” — but I’m sure the mercifully defunct Famous Writers School surely forbade using the “sesqui” word and “onomatopeia” in the same paragraph. (You can have fun with both of them at your next cocktail party.)

But back to our story. Never in this breathing world have I seen a person clog up and erode his speaking — as distinct from his reading — with more “uhs,” “ers” and “ums” than poor Crocker. Surely he has never seen himself talking: “Uh, that is uh, a, uh, matter that we, er, um, uh are carefully, uh, considering.” (Not a parody, an actual Crocker sentence. And not even the worst.)

These harsh-on-the-ear insertions, delivered in his less than melodious, hoarse-sounding tenor, are maddening. And their effect is to say that the speaker is painfully unsure of what he wants, er, um, to say.

If Crocker’s collection of these broken shards of verbal crockery were eliminated from his testimony, everyone there would get home at least an hour earlier.

Petraeus commits a different assault on the listener. And on the language. In addition to his own pedantic delivery, there is his turgid vocabulary. It reminds you of Copspeak, a language spoken nowhere on earth except by cops and firemen when talking to “Eyewitness News.” Its rule: never use a short word where a longer one will do. It must be meant to convey some misguided sense of “learnedness” and “scholasticism” — possibly even that dread thing, “intellectualism” — to their talk. Sorry, I mean their “articulation.”

No crook ever gets out of the car. A “perpetrator exits the vehicle.” (Does any cop say to his wife at dinner, “Honey, I stubbed my toe today as I exited our vehicle”?) No “man” or “woman” is present in Copspeak. They are replaced by that five-syllable, leaden ingot, the “individual.” The other day, there issued from a fire chief’s mouth, “It contributed to the obfuscation of what eventually eventuated.” This from a guy who looked like he talked, in real life, like Rocky Balboa. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Who imposes this phony, academic-sounding verbal junk on brave and hard-working men and women who don’t need the added burden of trying to talk like effete characters from Victorian novels?

And, General, there is no excuse anywhere on earth for a stillborn monster like “ethnosectarian conflict,” as Jon Stewart so hilariously pointed out.

What would the general be forced to say if it weren’t for the icky, precious-sounding “challenge” that he leans so heavily on? That politically correct term, which was created so that folks who are legally blind, deaf, clumsy, crippled, impotent, tremor-ridden, stupid, addicted or villainously ugly are really none of those unhappy things at all. They are merely challenged. (Are these euphemisms supposed to make them feel better?) And no one need be unlucky enough to be dead or hideously wounded anymore. Those unfortunates are merely “casualties” — a sort of restful-sounding word.

(I have a friend who would like the opportunity to say to our distinguished warrior, “General Petraeus, my son was killed in one of your challenges.”)

Petraeus uses “challenge” for a rich variety of things. It covers ominous developments, threats, defeats on the battlefield and unfound solutions to ghastly happenings. And of course there’s that biggest of challenges, that slapstick band of silent-movie comics called, flatteringly, the Iraqi “fighting forces.” (A perilous one letter away from “fighting farces.”) The ones who are supposed to allow us to bring troops home but never do.

Petraeus’s verbal road is full of all kinds of bumps and lurches and awkward oddities. How about “ongoing processes of substantial increases in personnel”?

Try talking English, General. You mean more soldiers.

It’s like listening to someone speaking a language you only partly know. And who’s being paid by the syllable. You miss a lot. I guess a guy bearing up under such a chestload of hardware — and pretty ribbons in a variety of decorator colors — can’t be expected to speak like ordinary mortals, for example you and me. He should try once saying — instead of “ongoing process of high level engagements” — maybe something in colloquial English? Like: “fights” or “meetings” (or whatever the hell it’s supposed to mean).

I find it painful to watch this team of two straight men, straining on the potty of language. Only to deliver such . . . what? Such knobbed and lumpy artifacts of superfluous verbiage? (Sorry, now I’m doing it…)

But I must hand it to his generalship. He did say something quite clearly and admirably and I am grateful for his frankness. He told us that our gains are largely imaginary: that our alleged “progress” is “fragile and reversible.” (Quite an accomplishment in our sixth year of war.) This provides, of course, a bit of pre-emptive covering of the general’s hindquarters next time that, true to Murphy’s Law, things turn sour again.

Back to poor Crocker. His brows are knitted. And he has a perpetually alarmed expression, as if, perhaps, he feels something crawling up his leg.

Could it be he is being overtaken by the thought that an honorable career has been besmirched by his obediently doing the dirty work of the tinpot Genghis Khan of Crawford, Texas? The one whose foolish military misadventure seems to increasingly resemble that of Gen. George Armstrong Custer at Little Bighorn?

Not an apt comparison, I admit.

Custer only sent 258 soldiers to their deaths.

About Dick Cavett

The host of “The Dick Cavett Show” — which aired on ABC from 1968 to 1975 and on public television from 1977 to 1982 — Dick Cavett is also the coauthor of two books, “Cavett” (1974) and “Eye on Cavett” (1983). He has appeared on Broadway in “Otherwise Engaged” “Into the Woods” and as narrator in “The Rocky Horror Show,” and has made guest appearances in movies and on TV shows including “Forrest Gump” and “The Simpsons.” Mr. Cavett lives in New York City and Montauk, N.Y.

Friday, April 11, 2008

It's SPRING (finally) in New Jersey!


My Christmas Cactus is blooming!


My African Violet is budding!



All the flowers on my window sill 
are just bursting with new life!

And, even though this 11th day of April is slate gray and drizzling, it's the promise of new life that gives rise to hope and joy!

Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

Question Authority, says Bishop

From seattlepi.com

The chief symbol of authority in the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, delivered an unusual message to a Seattle gathering of young churchgoers: Question authority.

In a setting that symbolizes entrenched local power -- the Washington Athletic Club -- Bishop Schori urged youthful listeners to "prod" the church, think about the Gospel "in new ways," and challenger their elders on the environment.

"I expect you to hold older generations' feet to the fire for the condition of Creation," Schori argued.

At another point, she told listeners:

"You are living reminders to the rest of us that God is constantly doing a new thing . . . Some people believe the church never changes. The only thing that never changes is a dead body, and that begins to rot."

Elected in 2006 by the Episcopal General Convention, Schori is the woman to hold the post of Presiding Bishop. She is a former oceanographer, with a PhD from Oregon State, and spent part of her girlhood in Lake City.

She is also a resolutely progressive voice in the church, to the dismay of some traditionalists. Schori supported the election of a non-celibate gay, the Rt. Rev. V Gene Robinson, as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire.

Schori has taken a hard line toward dioceses and congregations seeking to sever ties with the Episcopal Church - insisting that property belongs to the parent church - and has shaken up the church's administration. She is moving parts of the Presiding Bishop's staff to four different cities, including Seattle.

Schori was introduced by the Rt. Rev. Nedi Rivera, the number two bishop in the Diocese of Olympia, as a living refutation of the notion that religion is dull. The gathering for young people was sponsored by the Church Divinity School of the Pacific.

Anglican and Episcopal bishops from around the world will gather this summer in England for their once-in-a-decade Lambeth Conference. The conference is controlled by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowland Williams.

Williams had withheld an invitation from Bishop Robinson, whose election is not recognized by conservative African, Asian and South American bishops.

Schori made clear her displeasure with the decision not to invite the gay bishop.

"It's the archbishop's party and he issues the invitations," she said. "He (Robinson) is going to be there outside the meeting."

In answer to a question about cramped church facilities, Schori replied by saying: "Sometimes I think the (church) buildings are albatrosses." The Presiding Bishop praised what she called "the freedom that comes with simply gathering and being together."

She also urged young people to "think about the Gospel in new ways. It is the obligation of every generation to view God with new eyes."

A question-and-answer session saw the kind of blunt dialogue rarely heard on the visit of a religious dignitary.

Katrina Hamilton, a University of Washington student, talked about how many of her friends are removed from and ignorant of religion, and noted "an increase in the stereotyping of Christians."


"It is much more acceptable in my circle to be gay than to be Christian," said Hamilton.

"We don't live in Christendom anymore," replied Schori, "and that is both a challenge and opportunity." She urged people to ask the question: "How does the way we live proclaim our faith?"

Despite the presence of their distinguished guest, the Episcopal teenagers behaved like teenagers everywhere. They grew a bit restless, whispered jokes, passed notes, checked blackberries for messages, chewed and popped gum.

Chris Walsh, a student at Bishop Blanchet High School, put it to Schori in asking how the church can ever hope to capture and hold the attention of young people.

"We're always overscheduling," said Walsh. "What does the Episcopal Church have to offer to the overscheduled? How can the Episcopal Church reach out and compete."

It has to begin at the family and parish level, not at church headquarters in New York, the Presiding Bishop replied.

"Part of it is converting a consumerist, competitive society: You can't do that from the top down," Schori added. "Part of learning Christian discipline is about setting priorities."

The Presiding Bishop continued to be provocative, even in her closing prayer:

"We give you thanks for newness, and for the discomfort it causes."

Schori will visit the Seattle Art Museum's sculpture park on Friday afternoon, and then attend and speak to a daylong environmental conference on Saturday at St. Margaret's Episcopal Church in Bellevue

Live from New York . . . .


Head on over to Susan Russell's blog, An Inch At A Time, and get the inside scoop on the Anglican Covenant Conference going on right now over at General Theological Seminary in NYC.

She reports that last night Archbishop Drexel Gomez made his case for the Covenant, but didn't.

Susan writes: "Anyway, the Q&A that followed was interesting -- several folks here from the Canadian Anglican Church and one of the panel responders was from the Old Catholic Church so it definitely wasn't "the usual suspects." At the end of the day it fell short in the new information department but the dialogue was respectful and I give the overall tone and timbre of the evening two thumbs up.

For the record, I did NOT hear "the case for an Anglican Covenant" get made ... but stay tuned for Day Two ... coming soon to a blog near you!"

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Getting Ready for Lambeth: Four Cornerstones of British Conversation

I’ve finally started preparing in earnest to attend the Lambeth Conference July 16-August 3 in Canterbury, England. I will be there representing the Episcopal Women’s Caucus.

I fear it will all be a huge YAWN, up until the last three days.

The schedule of daily themes reveals that the last three things being discussed by the bishops and primates will be, in this order: Interpreting Scripture, Human Sexuality and the Anglican Covenant.

I confess that my “hermeneutic of suspicion” is in hyper-overdrive.

Why? Well, for starters, please remember that these are the same folks who helped to bring us B033 at the eleventh hour of General Convention 2006.

Some of us are not amused, but we have been trying to amuse ourselves. What’s the end of that old Victorian saying, “ . . .just close your eyes and think of England . . .”

As I consider the “listening process” we’re all supposed to be deeply committed to (without the presence of LGBT people, however, whose voices - in the person of Bishop Gene Robinson - have not been invited), I remembered what I learned about how the British ‘listen’ when I was at the last Lambeth Conference in 1998.

I spent a great deal of time on public transportation, and found that conversation is helped enormously by keeping in mind the Four Cornerstones of British Conversation.

There are the only four responses one has to keep in mind when engaging in conversation with someone from Great Briton. The key to them all, however, is knowing when to use them. It also doesn’t hurt to know how to change the vocal inflection and facial expression as appropriate.

The first is “Right.”

This is said in a non-committal manner, an acknowledgement that you heard what has been said. The voice, however, must be weighted with a certain sense of importance and gravity. Nodding the head seriously whilst knitting the brow and pursing the lip will give rise to at least another 10 minutes of uninterrupted soliloquy.

Like so: “Right.”

The second is like unto it: “Really.”

Here, one is allowed to become a bit more animated in one’s response. The eyebrows may arch slightly to match the question mark of uncertainty at the end: “Really?” Or, the eyes may widen and just a hint of a skeptical smile may cross one’s lips: “Really?” Or, one may react with utter disdain, allowing the slightest of an exclamation point to claim the end of your sentence. “Really!”

It is important to remember, however, that one must match one’s response to the message being conveyed by whatever the Englishman is saying. No variations are allowed.

The third is important but must be used judiciously: “Well, there you have it.”

Generally, one saves this response after carefully waiting for the point to have been made. It may take awhile. They do so love to go on, and they positively adore the sound of their own voices and assume everyone else does as well. And, they would be right – especially Episcopalians in purple shirts.

Just be patient and when you hear a bit of excitement in their tone – it’s often hard to detect, but you’ll know it when you hear it – that will be your cue. Simply look convinced and say, “Well, there you have it.”

The final of the Four Cornerstones of British Conversation is very similar to the third, but usually signals that you understand that the conversation has come to – or will soon be at – an end: “Well, there it is, then.”

It is very important to use this only if you know the Englishman has made his point or if a trolley stop fast approaches and either of you is near your destination and the conversation must come to an end.

To do otherwise may, however unintentionally but nonetheless certainly, insult the Englishman. Not to worry. Since it is said that the English do love a good insult, you won’t find yourself in too much difficulty. He’ll just write you off as a rude American, but since he thought that of you before you even sat down, you’ll be none the worse for wear.

Chin up. Stiff upper lip, and all that. Carry on.

The real brilliance of these Four Cornerstones of British Conversation is that you never have to venture your own opinion. Neither do you ever have to agree or disagree. The Englishman will simply understand that you have heard him, which is all that he really wants, anyway.

It doesn’t actually matter what you think, you see – just what he thinks. However, 'turn about being fair play' to an Englishman, he expect this exact process when the floor of the conversation is yours.

Understand, too, that the Englishman is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you; rather, he is just letting you know that he has heard you.

It won’t change a thing, mind you, but that’s not the point, which is to listen. Which, he will. And, so will you.

It’s all very polite and civilized, wouldn’t you say? It’s a bit like being invited to a proper lunch and knowing in advance which bread plate is yours and how to distinguish the dessert from the salad fork. Ultimately, it doesn’t change a thing, but it’s nice to know that your behavior was acceptable in public and that your mother would be well pleased. Sort of the same relief she feels when you’ve been in an accident and she knows that at least you had on clean underwear.

This, I have come to understand, is how the Listening Process works for the British.

Next up: How to speak proper English. First important lesson: a ‘fag’ is a cigarette, which the British still smoke in public with great abandon and free from any sense of guilt.

The first time I heard an Englishman say, "I'm positively desperate for a fag," I was positively slack-jawed with astonishment.

Did I mention the English penchant for hyperbole?

Well, there you have it. There it is, then. Really. Right.