Just think of the possibilities.

Further to yesterday’s blog post:

I notice in a news story this morning that the government is refusing to recognize foreign civil partnerships. Well, not really. They are actually refusing to grant a divorce to a same-sex couple – one partner is a Canadian citizen – who have never been married in Canada or anywhere. They have a same-sex civil partnership registered in the UK, but the Canadian government is suggesting that this is not the equivalent of a marriage in Canada.

Caution!!!

If this argument sounds even vaguely plausible to you, you need to do something about your latent homophobic tendency. This is how it all begins.

Come to think of it, if marriage is a basic human right, surely divorce must be too. So, why should someone be denied a divorce just because they’re not married? I mean, what of those poor people who have been denied the right to marry just because they found no one who was willing to marry them? Are they to be condemned, through no fault of their own, to a life of divorcelessness as well as singleness? And what of the unmarried person who longs to be a widow or a widower? I’m sure there are more married folks in that category than we might like to think. Why should one have to be married to be eligible for the benefits of widowdom: pensions, EI survivor benefits, the right to remarry or not remarry (even in the Catholic church)?

Eventually, of course, as the old song warns us, people will start becoming their own grandfathers. But just what exactly is wrong with that? Isn’t having a grandfather a basic human right? And, if so, surely being a grandfather, regardless of gender I might add, is a basic human right too. And why, in a free and democratic society, should I be denied the right become my own grandfather? Who else knows or loves me better than I do?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think we see a pattern here. This government is using the law to resist the Enlightenment, and to delay the full flowering of human dignity.

Why is our government dragging its feet?

I actually did see this one coming.

Two elderly woman were chatting after church one Sunday:

“Mabel, what do you think about this same-sex marriage issue?”

“Oh Harriet”, came the exasperated reply. “I’m so fed up with it I could scream. It’s all my husband ever talks about.”

“Mine too.”, the other sighed. “Same-sex marriage this, and same-sex marriage that. After 53 years with the same woman, what does he expect?”

Hey folks, are we really up for this? Looks like we’re into another round of wrangling over same-sex marriage, actually same-sex divorce. A lesbian couple from Florida and the United Kingdom, who came to Canada and got married in 2005, are now seeking a divorce here. And, surprise, surprise, their application is proving more complicated than was anticipated. Seems there’s a one year residency requirement for divorce in Canada. Who knew?

And why would you know? Though destination weddings are all the rage now, people still tend to get divorced where they live. But, if where you live doesn’t recognize your marriage, you need to go back to the place that does. Oops! It’s the law of unintended consequences. Whenever you make a change, especially a big change, some things you hadn’t considered will occur. This results in a process of ironing out kinks, which produces more changes, more consequences, and more ironing. The term for this is “government” or “the decline of civilization”.

But there’s a further complication. Some lawyers have questioned whether these marriages were actually valid in the first place. A government document in the case argues, "in order for a marriage to be legally valid under Canadian law, the parties to the marriage must satisfy both the requirements of the place where the marriage is celebrated... and the requirements of the law of domicile of the couple with regard to their legal capacity to marry one another." From what I can understand, they seem to be suggesting that there is an international convention that prohibits a country from marrying people from another jurisdiction, if they could not be married in said jurisdiction. But all this is lawyers talking to lawyers, and they will eventually sort it out, and collect some handsome fees in the process.

Another scrap to feed the voracious 24 hour news cycle. And another opportunity to listen to the opposing sides characterizing each other as degenerates and homophobes.

But it does further my conviction that it’s time for governments to consider getting out of the marriage business all together. Why do they care who’s married to whom? If there are dependency relationships: spouses, parents and children, dependent friends, whatever, they may need to acknowledge them somehow, but marriage is getting far too tangled and confused. Why not let faith communities and families worry about these things? Governments only make things more complex.

Well, no one's all wrong, all the time.

I read a very interesting book over Christmas called Why Catholics Are Right. It’s written by Michael Coren and, yes, the title is a bit off-putting. But, a title’s there to get your attention, and it got mine. And Coren does think Catholics are right about almost everything. He’s a rare bird these days, even among Catholics. But in spite of its title and narrow point of view it is, as I say, a very interesting book: readable, well argued, never boring. And, given the title, it is surprisingly gracious, and never gratuitously offensive.

One reason I enjoyed the book is that, as a Catholic, I was raised on his arguments. It’s fun to hear them all again, remember how I used them myself, and how I eventually came to reject many of them. They’re good arguments, well reasoned and intricately honed over decades, even centuries of debate. But, as my perspective changed, I found that, good and interesting as they were, they became irrelevant.

For example, Coren’s defence of an all male, celibate priesthood is based on the fact that the Old Testament priesthood was all male, and that they were required to abstain from sexual intercourse during their term of duty in the temple. Thus, he points out, in the biblical tradition priests must be male, and since Catholic priests are always on duty, they must always abstain. This presupposes, of course, that Christ ordained men to carry on the Old Testament office of priest, but, being an Evangelical, I no longer believe this.

Evangelicals embrace the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, which maintains that Christ’s priesthood is one of the things he shares with all of us. “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood,...” Interesting that it was Peter (according to Coren "the first Pope") who said that, in 1 Peter 2:9. If this is true the pastor of a Catholic church is, indeed, a “priest”, but only by virtue of the fact that all believers are priests. And it means that we have always had male and female priests, married and unmarried.

Coren further argues that there are practical reasons for priestly celibacy, and I fear these arguments are more to the point. As he suggests, it is theoretically easier for the church to direct the lives of unmarried men, less expensive to support a man with no family, and easier for the church to accumulate and manage property when the clergy have no families to bequeath it to. But besides being a bit too self-serving for comfort, these arguments ignore a number of very serious concerns:

1. What is the ultimate cost of rejecting for pastoral ministry all men who need a sexual partner? (Surely the vast majority of men.)

2. What of the problems of dealing with men who, after they are ordained, realize that they need to be married?

3. What about the consequences of creating an entire clergy structure composed of men who have neither wife nor children? (I believe the consequences of this include, among other things: an unbalanced and unnatural leadership structure; some very unhealthy attitudes toward marriage, sex and family; and an old-boy’s network like few institutions have ever known.)

4. What, finally, of Paul’s vehement condemnation of those who “forbid people to marry”? He says such people are “hypocritical liars” who “abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons”. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

In the next while I’ll say more about these things, and about other things Coren says concerning: the recent abuse scandals, the Church and science, life issues (abortion, birth control, euthanasia), homosexuality and marriage, the wealth of the church, etc. In the meantime, however, if you’ve ever wondered what the Roman Catholic church is all about, and why Catholics do, think and say the things they do, think and say, give it a read. I got my copy from the North Bay Public Library and it's in all the bookstores, so you can probably find a copy somewhere.

A bright light also casts shadows

I’ve always been intrigued by the interplay of darkness and light in the Christmas story. While Jesus is born amid the rejoicing of angels, shepherds and magi; King Herod responds with fear and hostility, killing defenceless children, and forcing Joseph and Mary, with the newborn Saviour, to flee Judea and take refuge in Egypt. And, even before Herod shows up, God’s gift to the world is laid in a manger because there is no room in Bethlehem’s inns.

Today, January 6^th, is the Feast of the Epiphany. The word is from Greek epiphaneia, which means "manifestation". In this context it refers to the coming of the Magi and the first manifestation of God in Christ to the Gentiles. But even in this idyllic story there is an unsettling ambiguity; the gifts the magi bring. Gold is valuable for obvious reasons, and frankincense is an incense used in prayer and meditation, but myrrh is a resin used chiefly for embalming. This hint of foreboding is the subject of the fourth verse of the carol We Three Kings:

Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume

Breathes of life of gathering gloom

Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying

Sealed in the stone-cold tomb

Some have imagined that the promise of the manifestation of God is a promise of pure, heavenly bliss. – Karl Marx so imagined and, thus, condemned religion as an opiate designed to placate the oppressed and subvert the Revolution. – But the story of Jesus is not so naive or sentimental, and neither is the response of the church to the story. For example, the day after Christmas (Boxing Day) has become, in our consumer culture, the culmination of “Consumerfest”, better known as “The Holiday Season”. But in the church calendar it is the Feast of the first Christian martyr, Saint Stephen, and an occasion for the wealthy to share with the poor (see previous post, Jan. 3).

And the story of the coming of the Magi, with its Myrrh, King Herod, slaughtered children, and refugee family, is a reminder in the midst of the celebration that there are forces in the world that do not welcome the arrival of the Prince of Peace. With the Magi, shepherds and angels, we raise a hymn of praise; there are some, however, who are going to raise hell.

THE VERY NATURE OF A SERVANT

One of my mother’s favourite Christmas carols was Good King Wenceslas. When I was a kid I thought this was kinda weird, but as I got older I learned more about my mother and the song, and it made a little more sense. These days a lot of the things my mother liked and did seem to me, if not wonderful, at least a little less weird. Can’t help but wonder if my kids are going through the same experience re me, but I’m afraid to ask.

The song, written by John Mason Neale in 1853, recalls a legend about a good, tenth century King (actually a Duke) of Bohemia (modern Czech Republic). On the feast day of Saint Stephen, which is the day after Christmas, this man of privilege goes out with one of his servants into the bitter cold and snow. He leaves the warmth of his palace, not to snap up a Boxing Day bargain, but to take food and fuel to a peasant who is in need. It’s a beautiful story of a greatly advantaged man who, like Saint Nicholas, used his advantages to bless the disadvantaged.

Wenceslas was only 28 when he was assassinated in the year 935, but his short life of selfless piety had made quite an impression. He was revered and venerated, and eventually declared a Saint, which is to say an example for all of us. We all have advantages, and the spirit of Christmas is the spirit of Christ, who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,... (Philippians 2:6-7).

Good King Wenceslas looked out
On the feast of Stephen
When the snow lay round about
Deep and crisp and even
Brightly shone the moon that night
Though the frost was cruel
When a poor man came in sight
Gath'ring winter fuel

"Hither, page, and stand by me
If thou know'st it, telling
Yonder peasant, who is he?
Where and what his dwelling?"
"Sire, he lives a good league hence
Underneath the mountain
Right against the forest fence
By Saint Agnes' fountain."

"Bring me flesh and bring me wine
Bring me pine logs hither
Thou and I will see him dine
When we bear them thither."
Page and monarch forth they went
Forth they went together
Through the rude wind's wild lament
And the bitter weather

"Sire, the night is darker now
And the wind blows stronger
Fails my heart, I know not how,
I can go no longer."
"Mark my footsteps, my good page
Tread thou in them boldly
Thou shalt find the winter's rage
Freeze thy blood less coldly."

In his master's steps he trod
Where the snow lay dinted
Heat was in the very sod
Which the Saint had printed
Therefore, Christian men, be sure
Wealth or rank possessing
Ye who now will bless the poor
Shall yourselves find blessing

My Mom died several years ago, but her influence endures. This weird little carol is growing on me.

Good King Wenceslas

Irish Rovers

or

Westminster Abbey Choir

AS WE BEGIN ANOTHER TRIP AROUND THE SUN...

Wow, it’s January One^th again, the beginning of a whole new year. Of course all it means is flipping one digit, but we all do it together and it makes us think about what happened during the past year and what might happen during the next; sort of a universal birthday. For some, birthdays are not a happy analogy, but at the very least they mean you made it through another year. Some folks didn’t make it through last year, so I think we have every reason to celebrate the simple fact that we are experiencing the first day of 2012.

On the downside, however, they tell me the world’s going to end this year. As noted in the previous paragraph, for some it will, but this more general apocalyptic vision is based on the notion that the Mayan calendar runs out on December 21. Of course this is bad news for everyone who’s sill on the old Mayan calendar, but it’s not the end of the world. There must be a free download somewhere out there. But there’s also the fact that, on this date, the earth, the sun, and the centre of our galaxy will be exactly aligned. NASA says this happens every year in late December, while the current soothsayers figure it only happens every 26,000 years. But the way I see it, regardless who you believe, we’ve been through all this before and we’re still here. I think we can all plan to celebrate Christmas again this year.

And did you know...

The Scots used to have a custom of paying all their debts by December 31 to avoid carrying them into the new year. Great idea, but all they got for this is mocked and ridiculed for being cheap. It’s nice when people pay their debts, but better when they owe you money and pay the minimum plus an exorbitant rate of interest. But, not to worry, this Scottish custom isn’t coming back any time soon, even among the Scots.

And the Scots (specifically Robert Burns in 1796) also came up with "Auld Lang Syne", a song everyone sings and no one really understands. It seems, however, to have something to do with remembering people fondly so I’m in favour. And it was the Canadian dance band, Guy Lombardo and His Royal Canadians, who made the song a New Year’s tradition throughout the world. Beauty eh?

And the Scots also had a tradition they called “first footing” where they would go out and call on all their neighbours immediately after midnight. Unfortunately it fell out of favour in most Scottish communities because so few people were home.

Hope you’re having a great year so far. If you meet and Scots along the way give ’em a hug. Three good New Year’s ideas out of that little nation ain’t bad, even if one’s unintelligible and the other two are impractical.

As we get closer to December 21 and the next episode of There’s No Tomorrow I’m sure we’ll all have more to say. In the meantime, if you run across any ancient Mayans, tell ’em “Thanks for nothin’”.

H a p p y N e w Y e a r ! ! !