Why I am a vegetarian

No, not a complete answer; just another data point:

Five more states consider bills to silence factory farm whistleblowers

Six other states already have such laws, with Iowa heading the list. The linked article above led me to a better one, written by Cody Carlson, a Humane Society investigator and published in The Atlantic Monthly (March 20, 2012)

Again, Iowa leads the way. Carlson worked in four Iowa egg production facilities and took video of the conditions in which the chickens are kept.

As a Humane Society of the United States investigator, I worked undercover at four Iowa egg farms in the winter of 2010. At each facility, I witnessed disturbing trends of extreme animal cruelty and dangerously unsanitary conditions. Millions of haggard, featherless hens languished in crowded, microwave-sized wire cages. Unable to even spread their wings, many were forced to pile atop their dead and rotting cage mates as they laid their eggs.

Every day, I came to work wearing a hidden pinhole camera, using it to film conditions as I went about my chores. Once I quit, the Humane Society released a video of my findings that showed viewers the everyday, routine conditions in modern egg factories. Although nothing I filmed was illegal (since Iowa's anemic animal cruelty law exempts "customary farming practices"), the video was alarming enough to make national headlines.

As noted in the previous essay, I tend to be harsh and judgmental. Thus, I will resist the temptation to say anything about those persons who, in spite of such evidence as the above, persist in eating meat. Or eggs. Or dairy products.

That list unfortunately includes me; My wife and I eat cheese pretty much every day. We use dairy products and eggs in baking, mostly in corn bread. And the cheese we purchase comes mostly from the mainstream agricultural industry (not the eggs, which are from local Amish farms).

May God have mercy upon us.

Some thoughts on Romans 1:26-27

The Daily Office Epistle for Tuesday in the Week of 2 Lent: Romans 1:16-25
The Daily Office Epistle for Wednesday in the Week of 2 Lent: Romans 1:28—2:11

Here are the missing verses:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

I will leave a proper exegesis of this text to my betters, but I wish to observe that it is dangerous to pick and choose which parts of Scripture are to be read by the Church. Much better, I think, to include this and other uncomfortable passages in the Lectionary for reading in worship, at least in the not-very-public venue of a weekday Office.

I also wish to observe that I have not encountered a convincing pro-LGBT exegesis of this passage. Mostly, the arguments I have seen tend to be ad hominem, attacking St. Paul for his supposed anti-gay bias. On the other hand, this is a crucial proof text for those Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong. Some of them feature these verses prominently in their teaching (e.g., the ministry of Westboro Baptist Church, Topeka, Kansas, and their pastor, the Rev'd Fred Phelps). To say the least, I do not find their use of this text convincing, either.

It may be that the key verse of the larger context (1:18—2:16, or in a larger sense, the entire sweep of chapters one through eight) is this:

Therefore thou are inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. (2:1)

If homosexuality is wrong, it is not a sin which has the slightest hold over me. Thus it would be very easy for me to condemn it. I believe that this is why anti-gay feelings are so strong, to the point of dividing Christians from one another. We love to condemn others for that which for us holds no temptation. And we overlook the list of sins in the following verses (vv. 29-31), a list which touches closely on us all:

… unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful...

If homosexuality is wrong, it is no more wrong than anything else on the list. Putting it in the context of the Episcopal (and Anglican) Church's arguments over the ordination of openly gay persons, we have lots of priests and bishops who are covetous, malicious, envious, lovers of debate, deceitful... No one seems bothered by that, so why make an issue of sexual orientation?

I should emphasize that I have made the thought experiment of considering homosexuality to be wrong for the sake of this essay, but that is not in fact my position. To give a counter-example to Romans 1:26-27, I submit the account of David and Jonathan, perhaps the most beautiful love story in all of Scripture:

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (II Samuel 1:26).

What does hit close to home for me from these opening chapters of Romans is St. Paul's condemnation of those who judge others (2:1-11). I fall easily into a harsh and judgmental spirit, and must constantly repent of it. Rev'd Phelps is a sad and cautionary example of what happens when one continues in such a spirit.

And, as I suggested above, one must not forget where St. Paul is taking his argument:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (8:1-2)

A Retirement

There are only three persons in public life whom I admire: The Queen, Jimmy Carter, and the Pope.

All of them are old.

I have known that a day such as this would come: Sunday, 10 February, 2013
The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark 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 recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.

It has been hard for me to work today.

Many years ago, it so happened that a group of about a dozen Roman Catholic young people spent a summer in the large farmhouse where I then lived. When I had learned that the Sister who was connected with the local Catholic parish needed a place for them, I offered mine; there was plenty of space for such a group, and just me floating around in the old house. I have many memories of that summer, brought back to me almost every day by the rocking chair where I sit at home in the evenings, usually with a cat in my lap – a chair which they gave to me.

One memory comes back today with special force: it was the Year of Three Popes, 1978. The young people were there in my house when news came of the death of Paul VI on the Feast of the Transfiguration, August 6. They had a busy day scheduled, like their other days filled with repair work on the homes of poor people in the county. But they laid all that aside.

After offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as he did every morning with the group in the front parlor of the farmhouse (and against all regulations they included me, a Baptist), the priest told the young people to make this a day of silence. They drifted off to various corners of the farm property, some of them going up into the hills and woods, some down to the creek. Most of them were in tears, which I did not properly understand at the time: how could this distant figure have meant so much to them?

How could this distant figure, this Benedict XVI, mean so much to me? I love him as a father. His writings (the primary way in which I know him) have meant more to me than those of any living author. His love of Music and of the great Tradition in liturgy have been shining lights to me, especially as his Pontificate corresponded with a period in my work where I felt that everything that mattered to me was under attack. For he, too, came under constant attack. The liberals, both in the Roman church and in our own Episcopal church, hate him. The secular press misunderstands him; his faith and scholarship and Christian witness are as far above them as an eagle above a scum-filled sewer.

But he is old. His health and strength are failing, as happens to us all. I believe that he carried the work as far as he could, and sees that he can go no further. I gather that his doctors told him “No more trans-Atlantic flights.” That means no more visits to Cuba, or Mexico, or Latin America (or for that matter to the United States and Canada), visits which are an important part of the work of a modern Pontiff.

On the other hand, he spoke often of the example of his predecessor, friend, and mentor John Paul II, whose last years became a sort of public martyrdom. In his weakness, Christ became increasingly visible. Should Benedict have followed his example?

In the 2010 book “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church, and the Signs of the Times” wherein the Pope is interviewed by Peter Seewald, Benedict said this (I do not have the book before me, but I quoted from it in this essay from December 18, 2011, which I encourage you to read; it is perhaps a foreshadowing of this day):

If a pope clearly realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has a right, and under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign.... One can resign at a peaceful moment or when one simply cannot go on. But one must not run away from danger and say that someone else should do it.

I believe that the decision to retire was difficult for him, and I entirely trust that it was reached through prayer, discernment, and having “repeatedly examined [his] conscience before God.” That being the case, I have no doubt that it was and is the right move.

I wonder if Benedict's visit with Archbishop Williams when the latter came to Rome shortly before his own retirement, and the thoughts and prayers they shared at that time, weighed on Benedict? Here was another Man of God, seeking to be faithful to his vocation, and coming to understand that it was time to resign. I believe that Rowan and Benedict saw in one another a kindred spirit and hold one another in genuine esteem.
[Edited to add this, giving some substance to the above:]


Much has already been written about Benedict's sudden retirement. Here is one item, from the Rev'd Ben Myers, the writer of the blog “Faith and Theology,” which I follow:

A letter to Pope Benedict XVI

Leading the church must feel sometimes like trying to keep a ship on course when someone else has been there before you putting holes in the hull. And then you get to the end of it all and wonder whether you did a decent job or whether you just created more holes for the next person to deal with.

But forgive me, Holy Father, I am forgetting myself. It is, after all, the church we're talking about (I will even use the Catholic capital for once: the Church), not just some troublesome institution. And the church has no leaders, only servants. Or rather it has one leader, always the same, he who loved us and washed us from our sins by his own blood. How easy to forget that the church today – with all its troubles, its sins, its sadness, its calamitous attempts at managing its own PR – is the very same church that was sustained by the testimony of apostles, the blood of martyrs, the prayers of holy saints. How easy to forget that the church is not ours but God's, and that God leads and sustains God's church by secret means which no tongue can tell.

I don't know what your legacy will be, Holy Father, and none of us can guess where the church's future lies. Except to say that the church's life is hidden in the same place it's always been, in Christ who is in God.

LORD God of hosts, we give thee thanks for calling thy servant Benedict to the See of Rome in a time of crisis. Grant that we, encouraged by his example, may persevere in running the race that is set before us, until at length, through thy mercy, we may attain to thine eternal joy; through Jesus Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (adapted from the Common of Saints, BCP p. 198)

Practical Organ-Building

I was able to spend most of this past Saturday tuning the Great and Pedal divisions of our parish pipe organ. It had been covered with plastic for the week while the church floor was refinished, to reduce the accumulation of dust, and parts of it had been knocked out of tune sufficiently to render the instrument unplayable. After that, I tuned one of our rarely-used pianos on Sunday afternoon, in anticipation of Choral Evensong in the little upstairs chapel where the piano resides.

"Out of discord, harmony." Organ tuning is a delight; so is piano tuning. I cannot normally justify devoting much time to this work, not when the duties of choirmaster and organist are more pressing -- but at times such as this weekend, all else must be laid aside.

Having spent much of my weekend in this manner, it seems appropriate to post the following review of an Old Book. I wrote this many months ago, and never got around to posting it here:

--------
Practical Organ-Building

For many, the conjunction of “Practical” and “Organ-Building” in the same phrase may appear illogical. Nonetheless, I have before me a book by that title: Practical Organ-Building, by W. E. Dickson. It is a reprint by Positiv Press of a book originally published in 1881, with second and third editions later in the 1880's. The book is available for free download, as well.

It is a fine little treatise of 182 pages. Within that compass, the author covers a surprising array of topics, with the intent of guiding an industrious craftsman through the process of building a pipe organ for one's home. Having poked around inside old pipe organs myself, I do believe that a person with good woodworking skills could complete such a project from this book, given a sufficient quantity of money for materials (about £ 80 by the author's estimate; it would be many thousands of dollars today), good hand planes and other woodworking tools, a spacious workshop, very large amounts of time and patience, and a large room with old-fashioned high ceilings for the finished instrument.

For those interested in such work, here is a website that offers a photographic account of the process, resulting in an instrument much like the one described by Dickson. Close study of this website would be a good supplement to Dickson. I have read a number of descriptions of the inner workings of the pipe organ. But Dickson's account of its construction clarifies many aspects, even if one is strictly an Organist or Friend of the Organ with no intention of delving into the construction and repair of the instrument.

The descriptions of Dickson's book closely match the construction details of the 1913 Pilcher pipe organ in our parish. It is thus a treatise of great value for times when the instrument needs repairs. Our little instrument was built with respect for the materials and the traditions of the organbuilder's craft that shine through the pages of Dickson's book. Those traditions began to fail not much later in the twentieth century, as cheap effect became more highly valued than plain honest workmanship. Our parish suffered from this trend: at one time it had a fine 1894 instrument by A. B. Felgemaker of two manuals, fifteen ranks. In the 1950's it was replaced by an inferior electropneumatic instrument which (through duplexing) had a much larger array of stops for the organist, and was thoroughly modern. As one would expect, this instrument soon proved unsuitable. The parish would have been better off to have kept the Felgemaker and given it a loving restoration – but that was not the way people thought in the 1950's.