From Twitter 07-08-2010

• 02:31:11: @infernoxv Oh, well, next time! Have one for me!
  
• 10:53:33: Good morning, all. Insomnia ruled the night yet again. Foot clinic later--very apprehensive. Send good thoughts!
  
• 18:30:20: Back from the quack. Right foot has deteriorated because of sore on the side, not the original ulcer. More antibiotics & xray next week :-(
  
• 18:30:56: Only good thing: they've given me a pillow cast rather than full calf cast. Bad thing: my calves are sore from non-use for a few months.
  

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

Happy birthday, rozk…

…and many happy returns of the day!

More on the selection of the next Bishop of Southwark

There is an article in the Grauniad, er, Guardian today on this subject which was co-written by Stephen Bates, the Guardian's former religion correspondent, and which is well-written, well-sourced, makes sense, and is sensitive to the feelings of Dr. John and the Diocese.

The fact that the pastoral needs of the Diocese of Southwark took a back seat to church politics is something that we have all been annoyed about but no one else has highlighted it in any of the many thousands of words that have been written and spoken about this matter.

I suspect that there has now been a leak from someone who was actually at the selection meeting (how else would Bates know that 5 of the 6 Southwark representatives voted for John?). Whatever I think about the Archbishop of Canterbury, I think that it is right and proper that, given the normal secrecy about the process of selecting bishops for the Church of England, anyone who violates their oath of confidentiality about the process should be unmasked and deprived of their responsibilities in episcopal selection. Whether the secrecy and the process itself is good is another question. Both open election (as is practiced in the US, Canada, and some other provinces) and secret selection as practiced here can throw up exceptionally good bishops and exceptionally bad bishops, and proponents on each side can point to elected bishops and secretly-chosen bishops who turned out not to be very good bishops.

As a native-born American but an adopted Brit, I am on the whole in favour of open selection processes and elections. I do not believe that this is in the cards for the Church of England, either on a parochial level (the process for selecting an incumbent for a parish is broadly in line with the process for selecting a bishop) or on an episcopal level. Whenever I have brought the question up in appropriate fora (such as the Bishops' Council or at various Synod meetings) the very idea of an open process has been greeted with the same horror that maggots on that American Airlines plane produced in the passengers. "We can't do THAT here!" is the usual response, although some, who think of "our American cousins" and refer to "across the pond" with the same genial superiority that was once assumed for "our black brothers and sisters" and for "darkest Africa", just laugh and say, "Well, that might be appropriate for America, but it just wouldn't work here." These latter people will never say exactly why it wouldn't work here, though, and if pressed, will just chuckle a bit at my naïveté and say, "This is the Church of England, dear boy."

What the closed process has produced is a virtual "A" list, a virtual "S" list, and a real (I understand) "B" list. The "A" list is of stars who will almost automatically end up with a diocese. The "S" list is of lesser lights who may end up as suffragans (produced by a secret meeting between the Abp. of the province and the Diocesan Bishop, with no lay or lesser clergy involvement at all), and the "B" list is of persons who will never ever under any circumstances be considered for any preferment (or further preferment, if they already have the freehold of a living) in the Church. Mere incompetents are on this last list along with pedophiles, criminals of various sorts (clerical criminals? There's lots of embezzlement around…), and "difficult" cases who've pissed their own diocesan bishops off in some way. I believe that "B" is its real name and stands for "Banned" but I can't be certain of this.

Of course, in line with the personnel practices of the Church of England, one's own presence on any of these lists will never be confirmed or denied. I expect that Jeffrey's name will now be placed on the "B" list to spare the blushes of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the future.

I find it interesting that only two names of possible candidates were mentioned in Bates'/Butt's article. Stephen Cottrell (currently Bishop of Reading) and Nick Holtam, Vicar of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. I think this is telegraphing to those "in the know" (wink/wink/nudge/nudge/saynomore) the names on the actual shortlist of two without actually saying that they were on that list.

Now we wait. General Synod this weekend will be consumed with figuring out how to get to "woman bishops" without first detouring into "second-class-woman-bishops". The general gossip level will be high and I would expect a further flurry of articles next week by various religious correspondents discussing woman bishops as well as further "revelations" about the possible new Bishop of Southwark. Watch for them, and discount most of them unless Bates or Butt has their byline at the top.

Prayers are solicited for General Synod, the Diocese of Southwark, and all those involved in the sordid affair of the Curious Case of the Incurious Archbishop.

It occurred to me yesterday that the rejection of Jeffrey would have distressed Dr. Spooner, as it deprived the Prime Minister of the pleasure of presenting the name of the "queer old Dean" to our "dear old Queen".

I can't believe I just wrote that. Time for breakfast.

Pedal Mobility System vs. "feet"

I went to the Diabetic Foot Clinic yesterday.

( Long post under the cut to save the uninterested )