10 Million by 2029?

Two years ago official figures claimed that the UK's population would rise from its present 61 million to over 71 million by the years 2074. The consequences of such a rise in pressure for homes and jobs, food shortages, destruction of the green belt and an immense rise in CO2 emissions are almost too horrific to contemplate.
It must now be becoming clear that such an increase in the UK's population is simply unsustainable. As the politicians meet in Copenhagen to hammer out solutions to the environmental issues threatening humanity's survival, surely our inability to stop re-producing at an alarming rate must be high on the agenda.
If the prospect of population overload by 2074 were not enough, we are now being told that the 71 million total will be reached by 2029, less than a third of the time we thought we had.
No less an authority than Jonathan Porritt (for years Chairman of the government's Sustainability Development Commission) is now saying that rather than a further 10 million increase in our current population, it is imperative that we reduce the number of inhabitants on these islands to around 30 million, otherwise our way of life will end with us.
Some will say this is alarmist. They argue that although the numbers entering Britain last year rose yet again to 163,000, there was actually a net loss overall thanks to greater numbers leaving these shore for ever. The BNP have leapt on this fact to point out helpfully that it is the indigenous white population that is leaving and largely Asian immigrants who are taking their place.
Their's is a racist drum with which I have no sympathy but they beat it to good effect in the hearing of many white anglo-saxon natives. Now, it appears, their message is really getting through. A YouGov poll for Migrationwatch UK says that 75% of voters are very concerned about immigration, and nearly two thirds(62%)of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters favour slashing annual immigration to 50,000 (a figure that would apparently allow us to stay below 70 million overall). To make matters worse, it seems that 77% say that the government figures are not to trusted. We no longer believe what politicians say to us on the subject of immigration.
If we are to live in a sustainable way the very least we should be doing is maintaining our population at levels no greater than we already have, although even that may not be enough. I would rather tackle the issue on the basis of a desire to live at one with the created order we have been entrusted with as stewards of God's work, than spurred on by racists with little Englander policies.
What is inescapable is the pressing need for a real change in the way we live if our planet is to survive. God give us the vision and the moral courage to address these challenges for the sake of all his people.

Twenty minutes?

I may not be able to agree with him on most things, but I do think Damien Thompson has got it absolutely right on this one. What is the future for Anglican/Catholic relations if this is all they can manage at this critical time.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100017476/dr-rowan-williams-gets-20-minutes-with-the-pope-they-both-know-its-all-over/

Catholic Faith or Catholic Church?

The following is a wise and challenging response to the editorial in The Tablet entitled 'The other path to Rome', and rightly contrasts the generosity and wisdom of Benedict XVI with the fears and potential resentment of cradle Catholics towards Anglo-Catholics who accept the invitation offered them by Anglicanorum Coetibus.
http://www.newmancause.co.uk/news/editorial-newman-and-the-tablet-on-becoming-catholic.html

Irish Lament

I was reminded of this only today and though I would share it. Maybe some of you saw the show and appreciated the supreme beauty of this tune - if so, re-live it now. For those who never saw Riverdance prepare to reach for the Kleenex. One of the most achingly lovely tunes ever written.

Thomas Bewick - nature's engraver

What with digital photography and the wonders of modern computer-enhanced brightly coloured images , what sane person would rather have their book illustrated with black and white images, hundreds of years old?

Me, that's who! Yes, I know that monochrome is out and the dazzling visual experience is in but where, I ask, is the magic? Sure, children would far rather have gleaming, vibrant pictures to go alongside their favourite texts of nursery rhymes or folk tales but to me the images I remember from my old books seemed to speak of another and more mysterious world, one in which colour, if it existed at all (which I doubted) played no part.

Do not mistake me. I would be the last person to champion one form of book illustration over another. It is not possible to compare them. I love the way Quentin Blake brought Roald Dahl's extraordinary world to life in ways that were both astounding and hysterically funny. It is a classic of its genre. But for me the wood engraving has a mystique, a quality all of its own.

Maybe the apparent two-tone nature of the images sat comfortably alongside the light versus dark, good versus evil kind of stories they illustrated. But of course the stories like the pictures were not at all black and white. A glance at the wood engraving above reveals the skill of the art with a myriad layers of texture, shading and incredible detail, all carved into one small end of boxwood.

It comes from the hand of the master, Thomas Bewick, whose fascinating biography by Jenny Uglow I am currently reading. This country boy from just outside Newcastle-on-Tyne began a revolution in engraving that was to make it the pre-eminent art form for illustrating books for the following 150 years.

A genius in his depictions both of country life and the animal kingdon, Bewick's minutely observed woodcuts gave new life to the art. Not only was his attention to detail quite unprecedented, but he breathed life into his engravings of the natural world by the use of a simple new technique.

Up to the mid 18th century engravers had retained the edge of the block to serve as a border for the image - possibly this helped printers to define the space needed to accommodate it. Bewick was the first to abandon the practice, rounding the edges of his blocks so that the creature or scene depicted is no longer restrained on the page but seems almost about to leap beyond, or even out of, it.

If you like wood engravings you will know all this. If you are new to the form you might like to research the work of others in this field, such as Gill, Raverat, Pellew and the contemporary See-Paynton, to name but a very few of the many artists who made this beautiful and magical form so bewitching.

Below is one further image - Marsh Marigolds by Claughton Pellew. Notice the way a broken fence is used as a symbol of death amidst the springtime blooms.

Forward in Faith?

So yesterday Forward in Faith concluded that the new Apostolic Constitution of Benedict XVI allowing Anglicans to return to the fold while retaining aspects of their distinctive liturgical practices.

Would someone please tell me what has really changed from one week ago? Seven days ago those of a strong Catholic spirituality (i.e. members of Forward in Faith) were free to surrender to Rome's obedience without let from their Anglican overlords.

A week ago whole congregations were free to submit to the Pope's authority if they so wished without hordes of Protestants forcing them to stay in the Anglican Communion.

To believe that their particular liturgical practices (almost uniformly pre-Vatican 2) will be allowed to survive beyond the first generation is to misunderstand Rome's compulsion to exert control over the faithful and have them fall into line with its authorised expressions of being Christian.

And we should not overlook the likely hostile reaction from within the ranks of the current Catholic clergy to all these married priests arriving in some parallel universe, where they can be ordained to exactly the same priestly orders their celibate brethren and yet continue to enjoy all the conjugal rights denied to others.

Lastly, all this is to duck what James Bradley called today the elephant in the belfry - sexuality. Many of these more traditional, single clergy are by nature homosexual. Will the Catholic church suddenly change its position on ordaining avowedly gay men? Unlikely, surely. Besides, there are already thousands ministrering in churches all over the world. There is an inconsistency at the heart of the church's declared position and its current practice.

This move by Rome may look like an attempt to give expression to unity without uniformity but I fear those going may not find the Ordinariate quite the heavenly home they think it is, and cradle Catholics (who have not in the past been especially generous in their judgment of converts) will have to swallow quite hard to accept the new influx on beneficial terms not available to all.

Nice try, Holy Father, but...............

So Rome thinks that by passing some new Apolstolic Constitution great swathes of the more traditional Anglican Communion are going to come cap in hand to the Holy See, begging for admission to the club?

Well, I'm sorry, but it simply won't happen. The vast majority of those Anglicans who have, misguidedly in my opinion, joined the ranks of Gafcon or the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) have virtually nothing in common with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) other than their objection to women in authority within the church and their other persistent, outmoded and bigoted approach to homosexuals in ministry. Actually, given the number of gay clergy within RC ranks I'm sure they would have problems with that too.

Ok. That leaves all those lovely Anglican Catholics, distressed, firstly, about women priests and now, secondly, women bishops. It is likely that most of the former have already simply joined the RCC in the past two decades rather than wait for this piece of Jesuitical casuistry. Those remaining already have a functioning system of separate episcopal oversight that allows them to retain their Catholic identity as well as a liturgical pattern that is deeply rooted in the Oxford Movement and spares them the blandness and banality of so much Vatican 2 worship.

This constitution does nothing to address the questions arising that relate to Anglican orders and their validity. Priests moving over to Rome will still have to treat their present orders as invalid (deeply offensive after years of faithful ministry to God's people, pastorally and at the altar), and married bishops will be able to be priests but would never again be allowed to play any significant role in the life of the church at the higher echelons - what a waste of talent.

In short, it is hard to see what Benedict thinks there is to be gained by this measure. Sure, he will successfully manage to poach a few individuals, no doubt. But I can't see any lasting benefit to a parish that is currently enjoying a fully Catholic liturgical life under male episicopal oversight within the Anglican fold.

In a real sense, living out the Catholic vocation in that setting is far more ecumenical than submitting to the 'infallibility' and 'unity' offered yesterday by the Bishop of Rome.