Joseph Ratzinger’s final calling?

Disclosure: I am a Northern Irish Protestant who has prayed with Rev Ian Paisley. My wife is a Catholic.  Together we went to see Pope Benedict XVI preach at the Colosseum in Rome on Good Friday 2010. I believe he is a Christian who is as human (and therefore fallible) as the rest of us. Controversial I know…

Joseph Ratzinger will step down from the Papal office on 28th February at 7pm GMT. It is a rather big deal. This is his resignation statement. He is “well aware of the seriousness” of his decision. I immediately wondered if it was unprecedented. But it has happened before, most recently in 1415 (just three months before the Battle of Agincourt). The precedent is real, but distant.

The Pope has concluded that “in order to steer the boat of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognise my incapacity to adequately fulfil the ministry entrusted to me.”

Pope Benedict XVI at the Colosseum on Good Friday 2010

There can be few, if any, callings so prominent as so be the successor of St Peter. So it is little surprise that his decision has sparked a lively debate about the acceptability of handing in his notice. It is normally only through death that God calls Popes away from their duty.

In that respect, it’s a dangerous profession. As Danny Wallace tweeted: “The vast majority of Popes die while being Pope. It’s bloody dangerous. Good move, Benedict.”

The Catholic former MP, Louise Mensch, seemed disappointed with the decision: “Bad news that the Pope is resigning. Didn’t know it was possible. John Paul II, many predecessors, continued til death in the worst health.”

I was extremely surprised at the news. I would be equally surprised if the Queen abdicated. But I wonder if it is simply romantic notions of  spiritual calling which prompt a belief that the Papal calling must be until death.

Although Papal resignations are not unprecedented, 598 years is long enough to establish a pattern that makes it seem unacceptable. The Papacy is, as Mrs Mensch also noted, not a “job”. She is quite right, it is a vocation to which one is called by God. In a similar way, she was called by the voters of Corby to be an MP. That too is a vocation, from which she resigned in August last year. I am sure her reasons (regarding her family) were honourable, but one must be careful not to judge others.

I believe that all Christians have a calling, often several callings. One may be called into a regular job, or to be an MP, or to be Pope. As well as regular work, I am called to be a husband, and hopefully soon a father.

I wonder if the calling of the Holy Father is more important that the calling of any other father. If a calling is from God, I believe that none is more important than any other. But the truth is that I don’t know; who am I to judge? Perhaps Father Ratzinger’s final calling will be even more important than his current responsibility. Only God knows the answer.

 

Personification Through Pethood

The food supplier, Findus, is destroying 380,000 frozen ‘beef’ lasagnes. By my reckoning, that’s 150 tonnes of perfectly good food: much of it probably horse meat…

What a waste.

There is no evidence of a risk to human health, and the Food Secretary, Owen Paterson, said he would be happy to eat it with ‘no hesitation at all’. There are shades of John Gummer here, albeit without the hapless daughter.

It is scandalous that we are being sold food with false labelling. While we do not currently know precisely what led to this, the possibility that it was brought about by a deliberate action rather than incompetence is deeply worrying.

Findus is taking legal advice about the grounds for pursuing a case against its suppliers, regarding what they believe is their suppliers’ failure to meet contractual obligations about product integrity.  The early results from Findus UK’s internal investigation strongly suggests that the horsemeat contamination in Beef Lasagne was not accidental.
(Findus press statement, 9 February 2013)

It is also scandalous that so much food will be simply discarded, especially when there is such great need in our country and elsewhere. I’m sure churches or other charities could effectively distribute these many meals to hungry mouths.

Not everyone will want to eat them of course. Certainly not vegetarians. And many of the rest of us would balk at horse meat.

But why? Once you’ve settled into an omnivorous way of life, why reject la viande de cheval? We are somewhat squeamish about certain foods, especially in the UK. It is a visceral disgust which drives us away from reptiles and insects. But we are also reluctant to eat dogs, cats, horses and bunnies. Rabbits are often served up in country pubs, but never bunnies.

The issue, I think, is personification. All these animals are treated as pets, or they work alongside us as companions. They have been personified through pethood. That is why we don’t want to eat them. It is also a cultural issue, but I believe this culture is born of pethood. Some people will argue that intelligence is a key factor. That may be true, but it doesn’t explain why we so readily consume pork (except Muslims and Jews).

Our general avoidance of horse meat has become a talking point. Vegetarians are asking how the rest of us draw the moral line between what we will and won’t eat; the pethood explanation, while probably true, is not fully satisfactory.

The horse meat ‘crisis’ is a headline issue today. That will subside before long, but I wonder whether it might have a lasting impact. Perhaps more of us will avoid meat altogether. On the other hand, perhaps restaurants like L’Escargot Bleu in Edinburgh will attract more custom for putting horse on the menu. I expect we’ll see a bit of both.

It’s quite right we should be thinking about these things. Global food resources are scarce (ie limited). Perhaps we should be a little less fussy about our meat, and also content with meat-free meals more often. It takes 12 pounds of grain (and other resources) to raise a pound of beef. That is a lot of food to expend to create more food.

Many of us demand a daily fix of meat. This stings the pocket. But it is also desperately hard on the world’s resources. 870 million people in the world do not have enough to eat.

Perhaps it’s time to settle for a few more berries and broccoli and a bit less beef.

 

An overwhelming majority, but no consent for women bishops

A clear majority of all three Houses of the Church of England General Synod have voted in favour of the appointment of women bishops:

In the House of Bishops: 44 in favour; 3 against – a majority of 94% – carried

In the House of Clergy: 148 in favour; 45 against – a majority of 77% – carried

In the House of Laity: 132 in favour; 74 against – a majority of 64% – not carried

Overall: 324 in favour; 122 against – a majority of 74% – not carried due to lack of consent in the House of Laity.

At 94%, the majority amongst the Church’s leaders (the Bishops) was overwhelming. The Clergy made their views abundantly clear. But the motion fell in the House of Laity (representatives of ordinary churchgoers) as it fell short of the required two thirds majority – by 6 votes.

I am a Christian. I am not an Anglican, but I am saddened by this result.

I agree with the principle of consensus. Church unity is important, and seismic change should ideally be avoided unless driven by unity. Church democracy is about more than just a simple majority. The proposal for women bishops was momentous and demanded consensus.

So I believe the safeguards in the system are important. But I cannot believe the House of Laity genuinely represents the 1.7 million C of E churchgoers. And that feels like a travesty which threatens the Church. It threatens the Church of England, and it threatens the wider Church too.

Many people will wonder to what extent the Church has the moral authority to speak into their lives.

Many Christians will wonder whether the Church of England can speak for them at all.

Next month, Justin Welby will succeed Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury. Both men were in favour of the consecration of female bishops. Mr Williams has spoken of a “deep personal sadness” at today’s vote.

Mr Welby must be daunted as he takes the baton (a poisoned chalice) from his predecessor. May God be with him. And may He continue to bless the Supreme Governor of the Church of England… a woman.

 

Olympic gold with a dodgy knee

Team GB’s middle distance legend Seb Coe was watching as the men’s 1500 metre finalists  set off, a race that would last just over three and a half minutes. First over the line was the Algerian runner Taoufik Makhloufi in 3:34.08. It was a comfortable victory, but for a short time his place in the final was under threat.

Mr Makhloufi had already qualified for Tuesday’s 1500m final when he took part in an 800m heat on Monday morning. But he stepped off the track just part way through the race and was disqualified from all events by the International Association of Athletics Federations. They deemed he had “not provided a bona fide effort”.

That’s a big deal at the Olympics, as eight badminton players know to their cost. Rules are rules, and Olympians must try to win.

At the time, just before his heat, even the commentators wondered how hard he’d push. Success in the heat would have taken him into the 800m semi-final, just a short time before his victorious 1500 final. The incentive to do well in that heat must have been very low.

The disqualification lasted just a few hours. Later on Monday, a LOCOG doctor confirmed an Algerian claim that Mr Makhloufi was suffering a knee injury. The IAAF reviewed its decision and “revoked” the disqualification.

So Taoufik Makhloufi competed in the 1500m final, with a dodgy knee, and won gold.

It was controversial. But in fairness to him, such a knee complaint – if documented – could well have been real. I know from experience that an existing knee injury doesn’t necessarily reveal itself over the course of a short run. But when put under stress twice in an evening, perhaps Makhloufi’s medal could have been threatened.

In my previous blog, I wondered whether the IOC should consider how contests are structured “to remove the incentive for athletes to give anything less than 100%.” Now I wonder about the wisdom of having a middle distance semi-final (800m) and a middle distance final (1500m) on the same evening. Both events are likely to attract the same competitors. Why not make it easier for them to compete effectively in both?

 

Why give 100% in the hunt for a medal?

For four years, maybe many more, you’ve been working towards an Olympic gold medal. Your struggle has carried you into the quarter-final of your chosen sport. Win that match and the next for a silver medal; win the final for gold.

But first you have one more group match to play. The result matters little, for you’ve already secured your quarter-final place.

How hard are you going to fight?

Not 110%. Sure, there are people out there who think giving 100% is just lazy, but frankly giving anything more is impossible. Let’s move on.

Will you give 100%? Probably not. To what end? Why would you? In the hunt for a medal, expending everything for no gain is both fruitless and counterproductive. In the case of the badminton match between Yu Yang & Wang Xiaoli (China) and Jung Kyung-eun & Kim Ha-na (South Korea), fighting for a win would have been doubly counter-productive. Winning would merely have secured them a tougher draw in the quarter-final.

So it was nonsensical to give their best efforts, as Olympic rules demand. Note that by ‘best efforts’, I mean 100%. I mean giving it one’s all: straining every sinew for every point; finishing the match physically and mentally spent; fighting as if for gold. Who would do that? Did Michael Phelps give it 100% in the heats of his best events? Will Usain Bolt give it 100% in the heats of the 100m? I doubt it.

The South Korean coach, Sung Han-kook, rather unsatisfactorily, said “The Chinese started this. They did it first.” For the sake of argument, let’s accept his point. The South Korean players were giving it 100% at the start of the match. Perhaps! And the Chinese were giving it 90%. If the match had proceeded like thus, then we would have been none the wiser. Jung and Kim would have won. The untrained eye would not have spotted the travesty before it.

But (still accepting the South Korean coach’s argument) at some point, Jung and Kim must have realised the Chinese were playing to lose. So they too lowered their game. From that point, it became something of a Dutch auction in the ill-fated chase for defeat.

The spectacle was painful to watch. See the match in full here (UK only).

Quite rightly, the audience wants to see the world’s top athletes playing at the top of their game. And the Olympic rules demand that they do just that. But I contend this is a rule that is routinely flouted. It’s just that when two opponents both seek to lose, then inevitably they will both be found out.

Eight players in total (including another four from South Korea & Indonesia) have now been disqualified. In this case, that judgement was quite right. But this was not the first time such gamesmanship has been found in the Olympics, and it will not be the last. Rather than try to enforce a rule which is at times perverse, the IOC should consider how the contests are structured, to remove the incentive for athletes to give anything less than 100%.

 

Historic – just not historic enough

I was wrong.

I imagined it would go to five sets, but declined to predict a winner.

Instead the Wimbledon Gentlemen’s Singles Final was decided in just four sets. And Roger Federer claimed the title for the seventh time. It can’t be easy to take on such a dominant player, but Andy Murray gave a commendable performance.

Federer is an unparalleled tennis genius, but what a worthy loser we have in Murray! In the nicest possible way, how wonderful to see some emotion, and tears, in his post-match tribute to Federer and the fans.

Now, sadly, the British player will be known again as Scottish until he next shows great promise. Despite making history with his appearance in this Wimbledon final, even winning the first set, it will not be enough to silence the disappointed British fans.

We should be more supportive.

The last time a British man played in the singles final was in 1938. He was Bunny Austin, who also played Charlie Chaplin socially. The last time a British man won the singles final was in 1936. He was Fred Perry, who played in long trousers as was customary at the time.

Until yesterday, 1936 was the last time a British man won any Wimbledon title in a men-only contest. We must celebrate the moment Jonathan Marray and Frederik Neilsen (Denmark) claimed the 2012 Wimbledon Gentlemen’s Doubles trophyafter a 76 year British drought. That victory has been glossed over by the media in the excitement over today’s match.

Of course, we should not forget that a British woman, Virginia Wade, claimed the Ladies’ trophy in 1977 and Andy Murray’s older brother Jamie won the Mixed Doubles trophy in 2007 with his Serbian partner Jelena Janković.

It was three sets to one, but today’s match was remarkably close. I thought it would be, but I was unprepared to predict a Murray victory. However, he’s still young, perhaps he’s still to reach his peak. He will win a Grand Slam one day and I hope we will see him again in a Wimbledon final.

In the meantime, bring on the Olympics!

 

Gay persecution – a challenge to the Church

The Italian football striker Antonio Cassano has said he hopes there are no gay players in his national side. Following media reports of two metrosexuals and two homosexuals in the squad, Cassano was asked at a news conference whether he believed it was true. In his response he said he had been warned to expect such a question and wondered what was a ‘metrosexual‘. With regard to gays in the squad?

“I hope there are none. But if there are queers here, that’s their business.”
Antonio Cassano, 12 June 2012 

It was a sentiment of breathtaking intolerance and insensitivity. It reminds me of his exuberant former Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who bragged in 2010 that it was “better to have a passion for beautiful women than to be gay.”

Cassano has since apologised, claiming to have been misinterpreted. Regardless, it is troubling that such prejudice remains so prolific in football and elsewhere. In the English Premier League, and the three divisions below it, there is not a single openly gay player. It is a stretch to imagine none of them are gay. There are 500 players in the Premier League alone. The ONS reckons about 1% of the British population is gay, a further 0.5% bisexual. While many Premier League players are foreign, one might reasonably expect a handful of gay players in each of the top four divisions.

It is 22 years since a player for a major British team came out as gay. Justin Fashanu faced a serious backlash, including criticism from his manager Brian Clough and even his own brother John. He hanged himself in 1998.

Justin Fashanu was not the first homosexual to take their own life. This week marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of the brilliant computer scientist Alan Turing. His skills earned him an OBE for his war efforts breaking Nazi codes. But a fateful turn of events led him to admit a homosexual relationship in 1952. That, of course, was illegal until it was decriminalised in 1967 (in England & Wales). Turing was forced to choose between imprisonment and chemical castration. He chose the latter, and poisoned himself two years later.

Alan Turing received a posthumous apology in 2009:

Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can’t put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him … So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work I am very proud to say: we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.
Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister, 10 September 2009

It is a terrible indictment of our past that we allowed the ‘sin’ of homosexual behaviour to be declared a crime. Indeed it is a terrible indictment of our world that it remains illegal in 74 states. It is even worse that some countries see fit to execute people for the way they chose to conduct a consensual sexual relationship.

How should the Church respond to such persecution?

Here in the UK, a consultation has just concluded on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry. They may of course enjoy the equal union of civil partnership, but understandably many feel the nomenclature of ‘marriage’, recognised in civil law, is important. Necessarily, in statute, marriage would require redefinition, which is opposed by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic church and many (but not all) members of other faiths and the wider Church.

Now that debate is open, the argument is important for both sides. It is a prominent issue, and the outcome could be epochal. But the tone of the debate is often deeply disheartening. While accusations of homophobia are often too freely bandied about, many Christians are much too eager to judge. Condemnation has superceded love.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
From the ‘Sermon on the Mount’, Matthew 7v1-5

What bothers Jesus more? Is it homosexual behaviour or judgemental behaviour? He is very clear about His attitude to judgement. For me, it is a lesson I need to relearn again and again. To my shame I judge others for all sorts of minor infringements in this world. From time to time, it is important to correct others, but not through the prism of judgement.

There are those in the Church who would argue the debate over gay marriage is not one they would have chosen; but they feel compelled to engage with it. However, it is relished by others, and for some Christians, their opposition to homosexuality is at the core of their belief. What about forced marriage (astoundingly it is still legal in the UK)? What about poverty? Or family breakdown? Or debt and usury? Or health and education? Surely a refocus is needed.

The UK has changed dramatically in my lifetime. It was not until 1980 (in Scotland) and 1982 (in Northern Ireland) when homosexuality was decriminalised across the UK. It was only in 2000 when the age of consent was equalised for heterosexuals and homosexuals. But the change in attitudes has been enormous.

In a generational sea change, many MPs are now openly gay. Examples of those outed by others, including Peter Mandelson (by Matthew Parris in 1998) and David Laws (by the Daily Telegraph in 2010) are very much the exception to the rule.

To be gay may be a minority status, but it is normal for many. If a Justin Fashanu emerged today, I believe he would be supported and widely accepted. I very much hope so.

Notwithstanding the legitimate debate over the definition of marriage, I hope the Church may see fit to make a stand on the persecution of gay men and women around the world. I hope it will be more supportive of gay men and women here in the UK.

Perhaps it is time for the Church to ask itself how to get more gay men and women through the door, not to condemn them the moment they arrive.