Father Scott Hurd serves as the liaison with the USCCB for the implementation of the Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum Cœtibus here in America. He has been looking at the options available to all Anglican groups in establishing a U.S. Anglican Ordinariate.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops created an ad hoc committee led by Donald Cardinal Wuerl last September that was charged with assisting the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in implementing the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Cœtibus.
Today Father Hurd concelebrated Mass at Our Lady of Walsingham (OLW) Anglican Use Church as part of his visit to Houston. After Mass there was a tiny reception outside the church which was followed by a short talk with a question and answer period for the parishioners of Our Lady of Walsingham.
Some major points that were learned today concerning the process as to where we are in possibly establishing a U.S. Anglican Ordinariate. Please note that none of this official.:
John Derbyshire is sort of the cranky uncle in National Review’s the Corner. He’s someone I used to find amusing, but he often goes off the rails when it comes to social and religious issues. I was prepared to ignore his scathing attack of a George W. Bush op-ed in which the former president defended his efforts to increase funding to fight the spread of AIDS in Africa. Derb’s not much impressed by Bush’s perceived moralizing, and objects to the public financing of something that he feels should be done through private charity. It’s a sentiment worthy of debate on its own merits, but I was struck by this comment:
The subsidizing of expensive medications (the biggest part of our AIDS-relief effort, though not all of it) in fact has long-term consequences more likely to be negative than positive. The high incidence of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is caused by customary practices there. What is needed is for people to change those customary practices. Instead, at a cost of billions to the U.S. taxpayer, we have made it possible for Africans to continue in their unhealthy, disease-spreading habits.
Perhaps the future of sub-Saharan Africa would be brighter if the people of that place changed some of their customs; but now, thanks to us, they don’t have to. (A similar point can be made about domestic AIDS-relief funding, currently around $20 billion a year.)
By “customary practices,” I’m assuming that Derb is talking about both promiscuous sexual activity and rampant drug use.
The reason that this jumped out at me is because it’s a rather familiar argument. After all, isn’t this an echo of what we argue when we note that the encouragement of condom use in Africa won’t solve the AIDS epidemic there? Don’t we, too, claim that we need to change cultural practices, not hand out condoms? In essence, Derb is making a similar argument. By contributing money, he’s saying, you’re absolving people of some of the responsibility for their behavior and perhaps encouraging them to continue in that very behavior which leads them to contract the AIDS virus.
Now it’s not exactly the same thing. Charitable contributions and condom distribution are, to say the least, not morally equivalent. Also, one of the arguments against condom use is that it simply encourages people to have sex outside of marriage. Aside from the moral problems associated with this, even “protected” sex is not 100% safe. Donating money to help people who have already acquired the disease – many through no moral failing of their own – seems to be a rather humane response and should not be scrapped.
Based on the tenor of his post it’s clear that Derb isn’t exactly coming at this from a cultural point-of-view, but is criticizing the program based on an extreme libertarian notion about foreign aid. It does occur to me, however, that this might be one of those moments, discussed on this very blog in recent weeks, where libertarians and social conservatives can find some common ground. Though Derb’s advocacy of a complete abandonment of any American aid certainly feels harsh and is, I believe, an extreme solution , it seems that he shares our end goal of changing behavior.
On the other hand, perhaps one commenter on the Corner has the right response to Derbyshire’s post:
`I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas, and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned – they cost enough:
and those who are badly off must go there.’
“If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population…”
A while back, I outline the case that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic actually has the opposite effect and that it is not a pro-life measure, as some would imagine that it is.
The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, while on his apostolic journey in Africa made remarks about the use of condoms and the crisis of AIDS that drew an incredible amount of criticism.
As providence would have it, a senior research scientist of Harvard School of Public Health has spoken out and agreed with the Holy Father.
Salvete AC readers!
Here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:
1. Cardinal George had a private unscheduled 30 minute meeting with President Barack Obama yesterday afternoon. Outside of the normal platitudes issued between the USCCB and the White House, nothing substantive of note can be reported. Although Cardinal George issued a YouTube video warning to President Obama concerning the United State’s moving towards despotism the day prior to his meeting. President Obama seems to have responded positively to Cardinal George’s proposal of “an agenda for dialogue” which was issued early this year.
2. The secular and liberal media, i.e., the mainstream media, have pretty much remained silent on Pope Benedict’s visit to Africa. Is it because they don’t want to report the problem of condoms only exacerbating the issue of AIDS and not wanting to hear about the sanctity of life? Is it beneath their elitism to do anything with Africa? Or is it because the mainstream media could care less about Africa because of the pigment of their complexion? Remember Rwanda and southern Sudan, the media remained silent.
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf made similar comments, for the link click here.
Forgive me for indulging in an act of ‘shameless self promotion’ — but the Benedict XVI Fan Club (of which I am the administrator) will be providing regular roundups of news, coverage and commentary on the Pope’s visit to Africa from religious and secular media, and will be linking to the Pope’s addresses as they become available.
George Weigel would like to thank President Bush. “For what, you ask? For many things that ought to count for Catholics”:
At one of the blogs I read regularly, Neo-Neocon, the proprietress has an excellent story highlighting the praise of Mathew Parris, a British atheist and writer, for the work of missionaries in Africa and the enormous positive spiritual changes which frequently occur in their converts. I have long thought that the good work performed by missionaries around the globe, but especially in Africa, was the major overlooked story of the last century. If I had to pick one development of the past century that will still be having a major impact a millennium hence, I would pick the fact that Africa is becoming a Christian continent. As much of Europe is forgetting the Faith, and too many Americans are cold and indifferent, the message of Christ is meeting with cries of joy throughout Africa. Perhaps some day Christian missionaries from Africa will light the fire of faith again in “darkest” Europe.
Frequently in discourse with non-Catholics, or some Catholics even, when the issue of contraception and the AIDS epidemic arises, there is uneasiness about the Church’s teaching on dealing with this deeply troubling matter. One might argue that by maintaining opposition to the use of condoms, the Catholic Church contributes rather to the spread of AIDS in Africa, for if the “Vatican hierarchy” cared more about people’s lives than rigid doctrines that even most Catholics reject, they would change their view to prevent the spread of AIDS. Why? It is the more “pro-life” thing to do given that it would save millions from dying from unprotected sex.