Off Topic: Baby Names

Normally, I think courts getting involved in family matters are wrong. In the case of abuse and divorce, I think it is appropriate even if I don't always approve of divorce. A first glance, I would still think that a court getting involved in a child's naming is a gross over step in their powers, but when I saw the names parents were trying to give their children, I changed my mind. I think you will agree with me. In 60's and 70's, there were some very interesting names, and it's probably not a hard leap in logic to think that they were drug inspired. Take River Phoenix for instance. I wonder if he was picked on in school. Maybe I am just used to those kind of names now by exposure and the fact that they have always been there. However these new names I have been reading about are quite shocking. I feel sincerely sorry for these children. How can you name your child "4Real", "Sex Fruit", "Number 16 Bus Shelter", or "Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii"?

[ Source ]
[ Source ]

This makes me feel even more affirmed in naming my son George. Is this phenomenon limited to New Zealand?

This Blog's Reading Level

Apparently, my blog has a high reading level. My wife pointed this out to me. She was not too happy with that, because she had received a Junior High Level. I tried to explain that a lower level can be better. You can reach a broader audience, and it's easier to read. Though I think the that irritates her the most about it that I ask her to look over my entries. I miss mistakes often. It's probably due to my dyslexia.

Check this place out if you want. I am not sure how its algorithm works. It might consider sentence and paragraph length. It also might consider things like word choices. If you use lots of longer, less-used words. I am curious how this works. Just don't follow my wife's example and be disappointed if it does not rate how you would like it.

Bishop Vader?

I guess they're letting anyone in now-a-days?

[ Source ]

Off Topic: Bouncing Babies

Some of my college and online friends would make one of those punch a baby jokes and did not really bother me till now. I never found it funny nor did I make one of those jokes. I considered it rather crude. After an article my wife sent me, I feel sick thinking about all those jokes they made. Despite how rude, crude, and socially unacceptable those jokes were, I never really thought someone would actually do something like that intentionally. Humanity can be quite despicable. I never really thought about a sane person intentionally harming a baby. Sure, I've seen enough Law & Order episodes with people doing that, but I always thought of it as a work of fiction despite the episodes being based off of real life stories.

Warning: Do not watch the video if you don't have a thick skin or have a queasy stomach. It's not for the faint of heart.

This news article really brings it to reality for me. The next time I hear one of those jokes, I think I will ask them not to tell it. Anyone who would harm a sweet innocent baby should be punished. Course I think the same of unborn babies. Life begins at conception. It does take a truly sick mind to think throwing babies through the air is funny and then video tape it.

P.S. My wife was in tears after watching that video. She had to give George a hug too.

Good for the Roman Catholic Church

Vatican to Excommunicate Women Priests

It's good to see a church enforcing its doctrines instead changing the doctrines, because someone broke it. Now if we could just see other churches following their example. Any women who are ordained as priests are automatically excommunicated, as well as the bishop who ordains them.

Off Topic: Mississippi Coast

My wife and I went on our first trip with little Georgie. He was great and didn't fuss much. We went to visit my mother in Mississippi. I thought we'd drive through New Orleans and along Highway 90 to see how the recovery effort was coming along. It was disheartening through the last half of New Orleans. I wish I had thought to snap a few pictures. We could see quite a few houses and businesses still gutted and with holes in their roofs. You could tell there has been a lot of progress, but it was saddening to see how many buildings still were not viable.

We did think to grab a few pictures along Highway 90 in Mississippi. Back before Hurricane Katrina, my wife I visited Biloxi. There was a beautiful old Episcopal church, The Church of the Redeemer. The main building had been constructed in 1874. It was architecturally beautiful. I wish I had thought to take a picture. You can visit the web site for the full history. Out front there had been a bell tower. There were three stain glass windows that been fashioned from the glass from the debris left by Hurricane Camille which had destroyed the new church building in 1969. They were a memorial, "Window of Hope", "Window of the Redeemer", and "Rose Window." To left, I have a picture of where the old church stood.

They also had a memorial of those who had died in Camille. It remained, but the flag pole was bent. Camille claimed the lives of 259 and caused $1.42 billion in property damage in 1969. The storm surge reached 24 feet, which is quite high in comparison with Katrina's 27 foot storm surge. Before Katrina, you could see some of the damage left behind by Camille. There was one apartment complex I remember that had been washed out and had never been restored or demolished. However after Katrina, it is not being restored, but it wasn't complete as of when left back for Texas. At least, highway 90 bridge has been rebuilt and actually better than before.

Many of the beautiful antebellum homes that lined the beach were destroyed, some were merely damaged, and only a few have restored or rebuilt.




You can find the full gallery here.

The Ordination of a Priest

So I've come across several different places in blogs and e-groups where people have complained that a priest who was ordained a priest shouldn't leave The Episcopal Church and remain a priest. Their reasoning for this argument is from one line in the ordination of a priest from the book of common prayer 1979. I think you'll might remember that line from an earlier musing of mine, "and worship of The Episcopal Church." I find it humorous that they ignore the rest of the vows taken. For instance, "Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them?" and "And will you, in accordance with the canons of this Church, obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and your work?" are asked of the ordinand. Not only does the ordinand say yes, but he goes into detail. "I am willing and ready to do so; and I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church." Normally, when you read, you go from left to right, top to bottom. These vows are structure in order for a reason. It's not about sounding ornate or elaborate. So I will break it down.

The Presentation
Presenters
(Name), Bishop in the Church of God, on behalf of the clergy and people of the Diocese of (Diocese's Name), we present to you (Ordinand's Name) to be ordained a priest in Christ's holy catholic Church.

Bishop
Has he been selected in accordance with the canons of this
Church? And do you believe his manner of life to be suitable
to the exercise of this ministry?

Presenters
We certify to you that he has satisfied the requirements of the
canons, and we believe him to be qualified for this order.

That's fairly simple. Presenters present the ordinand to the bishop for ordination in Christ's holy catholic Church. Take note that he is ordained in Christ's holy catholic Church not The Episcopal Church. The Bishop basically asks if he follows the canons and would make a good priest. The presenters before God and Christ's Church certify that meets the requirements and is qualified. So say if someone is in violation of the canons, the presenters would be lying. If the bishop knows they are lying and accepts there answer, it would most disappointing.

Bishop
Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of
Christ as this Church has received them? And will you, in
accordance with the canons of this Church, obey your bishop
and other ministers who may have authority over you and
your work?

Ordinand
I am willing and ready to do so; and I solemnly declare that I
do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to
salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine,
discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.

Doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church as received them? How often do we receive them? I don't think that often. Once again, saying yes to them before changing the doctrine seems wrong to me. The next line doesn't really support leaving The Episcopal Church, which I wonder why it isn't used more often. There is that qualifier in there, "in accordance with the canons of this Church," before obeying your bishop. The response is what speaks strongly to me. It is sort of like saying, I will but also I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation. The ordinand is stating that the Scriptures are Holy, and that they believe in both Old and New Testaments. They also state that they are the Word of God. They are not some historical document you can take the parts you want and throw out the other parts.

The thing that makes seem alright to me is that the piece of being apart of The Episcopal Church are qualifiers. The qualifiers seem to be the weaker part of the vow while the meat is more important, things like believing in the Holy Scriptures. When the two are in conflict, which they are undoubtedly, I would hope that the priest would go with the stronger part of the vow.

This is only touching on the presentation. I could go deeper, but I think my burden of proof is met here. You'll find the book of common prayer here, or you can turn to page 526 in your own copy. If you looked back, you would find that the first homosexual bishop was approved before the canon was changed. Most of these ground-breaking ordinations were done out of order. In parts of The Episcopal Church, you will find that it's not even required for priests to agree with all of the Nicene Creed or that the Bible is the Word of God. Now explain to me why you could think that someone who meant what they said and tries to follows their vows to the best of their abilities is less worthy than someone who only meant part of their vows?