Bishop Alan’s Blog: Hallelujah Chorus for Trappists

I had to post this. Darryl - are you sure that's not you, 6th from the left in the front row?

I think we should be told...

Bishop Alan’s Blog: Hallelujah Chorus for Trappists

Quaestio IV: Ever Felt a Bit Abused?

I found this sort of by accident when I was reading something on BALMNET (Bullied and Abused Lives in Ministry). I hope it's just me amongst this Blog's contributors and readers, but I thought, Gosh! Some of this sounds almost familiar!

Psychic - erm - priestly clairvoyance kicks in... Author hears a 'huff' of disapproval... Receives a warning glare.

Almost, mind you. No, of course I'll mind you. Please don't discipline me. I'll stop. I take it all back. I'll be a much better priest in future. I'll even stop cracking my knuckles in the Vestry. Please? No! No-no-no-no-no...

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

recovering former cultists' support network

recovery resources for folks hurt by their involvement with
abusive and controlling organizations and relationships

Biderman's Chart of Coercion

---

"Most people who brainwash...use methods similar to those of prison guards who recognize that physical control is never easily accomplished without the cooperation of the prisoner. The most effective way to gain that cooperation is through subversive manipulation of the mind and feelings of the victim, who then becomes a psychological, as well as a physical, prisoner."
from an Amnesty International publication, "Report on Torture", which depicts the brainwashing of prisoners of war.

---

Isolation

• Deprives individual of social support, effectively rendering him unable to resist
• Makes individual dependent upon interrogator
• Develops an intense concern with self.

Once a person is away from longstanding emotional support and thus reality checks, it is fairly easy to set a stage for brainwashing. Spiritually abusive groups work to isolate individuals from friends and family, whether directly, by requiring the individuals to forsake friends and family for the sake of the "Kingdom" (group membership), or indirectly, by preaching the necessity to demonstrate one's love for God by "hating" one's father, mother, family, friends.

Abusive groups are not outward-looking, but inward-looking, insisting that members find all comfort and support and a replacement family within the group. Cut off from friends, relatives, previous relationships, abusive groups surround the recruits and hammer rigid ideologies into their consciousnesses, saturating their senses with specific doctrines and requirements of the group.

Isolated from everyone but those within the group, recruits become dependent upon group members and leaders and find it difficult if not impossible to offer resistance to group teachings. They become self-interested and hyper-vigilant, very fearful should they incur the disapproval of the group, which now offers the only support available to them which has group approval.

Warning signs
The seed of extremism exists wherever a group demands all the free time of a member, insisting he be in church every time the doors are open and calling him to account if he isn't, is critical or disapproving of involvements with friends and family outside the group, encourages secrecy by asking that members not share what they have seen or heard in meetings or about church affairs with outsiders, is openly, publicly, and repeatedly critical of other churches or groups (especially if the group claims to be the only one which speaks for God), is critical when members attend conferences, workshops or services at other churches, checks up on members in any way, i.e., to determine that the reason they gave for missing a meeting was valid, or makes attendance at all church functions mandatory for participating in church ministry or enjoying other benefits of church fellowship.

Once a member stops interacting openly with others, the group's influence is all that matters. He is bombarded with group values and information and there is no one outside the group with whom to share thoughts or who will offer reinforcement or affirmation if the member disagrees with or doubts the values of the group. The process of isolation and the self-doubt it creates allow the group and its leaders to gain power over the members. Leaders may criticize major and minor flaws of members, sometimes publically, or remind them of present or past sins. They may call members names, insult them or ignore them, or practice a combination of ignoring members at some times and receiving them warmly at others, thus maintaining a position of power (i.e., the leaders call the shots.)

The sense of humiliation makes members feel they deserve the poor treatment they are receiving and may cause them to allow themselves to be subjected to any and all indignities out of gratefulness that one as unworthy as they feel is allowed to participate in the group at all. When leaders treat the member well occasionally, they accept any and all crumbs gratefully. Eventually, awareness of how dependent they are on the group and gratitude for the smallest attention contributes to an increasing sense of shame and degradation on the part of the members, who begin to abuse themselves with "litanies of self-blame," i.e., "No matter what they do to me, I deserve it, as sinful and wretched as I am. I deserve no better. I have no rights but to go to hell. I should be grateful for everything I receive, even punishment."

Monopolization of Perception

• Fixes attention upon immediate predicament; fosters introspection
  
• Eliminates stimuli competing with those controlled by captor
  
• Frustrates all actions not consistent with compliance
  

Abusive groups insist on compliance with trival demands related to all facets of life: food, clothing, money, household arrangements, children, conversation. They monitor members' appearances, criticize language and childcare practices. They insist on precise schedules and routines, which may change and be contradictory from day to day or moment to moment, depending on the whims of group leaders.

At first, new members may think these expectations are unreasonable and may dispute them, but later, either because they want to be at peace or because they are afraid, or because everyone else is complying, they attempt to comply. After all, what real difference does it make if a member is not allowed to wear a certain color, or to wear his hair in a certain way, to eat certain foods, or say certain words, to go certain places, watch certain things, or associate with certain individuals. In the overall scheme of things, does it really matter? In fact, in the long run, the member begins to reason, it is probably good to learn these disciplines, and after all, as they have frequently been reminded, they are to submit to spiritual authority as unto the Lord.. Soon it becomes apparent that the demands will be unending, and increasing time and energy are focused on avoiding group disapproval by doing something "wrong." There is a feeling of walking on eggs. Everything becomes important in terms of how the group or its leaders will respond, and members' desires, feelings and ideas become insignificant. Eventually, members may no longer even know what they want, feel or think. The group has so monopolized all of the members' perceptions with trivial demands that members lose their perspective as to the enormity of the situation they are in.

The leaders may also persuade the members that they have the inside track with God and therefore know how everything should be done. When their behavior results in disastrous consequences, as it often does, the members are blamed. Sometimes the leaders may have moments, especially after abusive episodes, when they appear to humble themselves and confess their faults, and the contrast of these moments of vulnerability with their usual pose of being all-powerful endears them to members and gives hope for some open communication.

Threats sometimes accompany all of these methods. Members are told they will be under God's judgment, under a curse, punished, chastised, chastened if they leave the group or disobey group leaders. Sometimes the leaders, themselves, punish the members, and so members can never be sure when leaders will make good on the threats which they say are God's idea. The members begin to focus on what they can do to meet any and all group demands and how to preserve peace in the short run. Abusive groups may remove children from their parents, control all the money in the group, arrange marriages, destroy personal items of members or hide personal items.

Warning signs:
Preoccupation with trivial demands of daily life, demanding strict compliance with standards of appearance, dress codes, what foods are or are not to be eaten and when, schedules, threats of God's wrath if group rules are not obeyed, a feeling of being monitored, watched constantly by those in the group or by leaders. In other words, what the church wants, believes and thinks its members should do becomes everything, and you feel preoccupied with making sure you are meeting the standards. It no longer matters whether you agree that the standards are correct, only that you follow them and thus keep the peace and in the good graces of leaders.

Induced Debility and Exhaustion

People subjected to this type of spiritual abuse become worn out by tension, fear and continual rushing about in an effort to meet group standards. They must often avoid displays of fear, sorrow or rage, since these may result in ridicule or punishment. Rigid ministry demands and requirements that members attend unreasonable numbers of meetings and events makes the exhaustion and ability to resist group pressure even worse.

Warning Signs:
Feelings of being overwhelmed by demands, close to tears, guilty if one says no to a request or goes against a church standards. Being intimidated or pressured into volunteering for church duties and subjected to scorn or ridicule when one does not "volunteer." Being rebuked or reproved when family or work responsibilities intrude on church responsibilities.

Occasional Indulgences

• Provides motivation for compliance

Leaders of abusive groups often sense when members are making plans to leave and may suddenly offer some kind of indulgence, perhaps just love or affection, attention where there was none before, a note or a gesture of concern. Hope that the situation in the church will change or self doubt ("Maybe I'm just imagining it's this bad,") then replace fear or despair and the members decide to stay a while longer. Other groups practice sporadic demonstrations of compassion or affection right in the middle of desperate conflict or abusive episodes. This keeps members off guard and doubting their own perceptions of what is happening.

Some of the brainwashing techniques described are extreme, some groups may use them in a disciplined, regular manner while others use them more sporadically. But even mild, occasional use of these techniques is effective in gaining power.

Warning Signs:
Be concerned if you have had an ongoing desire to leave a church or group you believe may be abusive, but find yourself repeatedly drawn back in just at the moment you are ready to leave, by a call, a comment or moment of compassion. These moments, infrequent as they may be, are enough to keep hope in change alive and thus you sacrifice years and years to an abusive group.

Devaluing the Individual

• Creates fear of freedom and dependence upon captors
  
• Creates feelings of helplessness
  
• Develops lack of faith in individual capabilities
  

Abusive leaders are frequently uncannily able to pick out traits church members are proud of and to use those very traits against the members. Those with natural gifts in the areas of music may be told they are proud or puffed up or "anxious to be up front" if they want to use their talents and denied that opportunity. Those with discernment are called judgmental or critical, the merciful are lacking in holiness or good judgment, the peacemakers are reminded the Lord came to bring a sword, not peace. Sometimes efforts are made to convince members that they really are not gifted teachers or musically talented or prophetically inclined as they believed they were. When members begin to doubt the one or two special gifts they possess which they have always been sure were God-given, they begin to doubt everything else they have ever believed about themselves, to feel dependent upon church leaders and afraid to leave the group. ("If I've been wrong about even *that*, how can I ever trust myself to make right decisions ever again?").

Warning Signs:
Unwillingness to allow members to use their gifts. Establishing rigid boot camp-like requirements for the sake of proving commitment to the group before gifts may be exercised. Repeatedly criticizing natural giftedness by reminding members they must die to their natural gifts, that Paul, after all, said, "When I'm weak, I'm strong," and that they should expect God to use them in areas other than their areas of giftedness. Emphasizing helps or service to the group as a prerequisite to church ministry. This might take the form of requiring that anyone wanting to serve in any way first have the responsibility of cleaning toilets [OK no deja vu there...] or cleaning the church for a specified time, that anyone wanting to sing in the worship band must first sing to the children in Sunday School, or that before exercising any gifts at all, members must demonstrate loyalty to the group by faithful attendance at all functions and such things as tithing. No consideration is given to the length of time a new member has been a Christian or to his age or station in life or his unique talents or abilities. The rules apply to everyone alike. This has the effect of reducing everyone to some kind of lowest common denominator where no one's gifts or natural abilities are valued or appreciated, where the individual is not cherished for the unique blessing he or she is to the body of Christ, where what is most highly valued is service, obedience, submission to authority, and performance without regard to gifts or abilities or, for that matter, individual limitations.

Picture above is from Wikipedia article about Jonestown.

---

Quaestio III: Whhhat is the name of our Patron and Anglican Catholic Confessor?

James A. Kiefer of the St Albans-based Society of Archbishop Justus writes:

John Mason Neale, Priest, Scholar, Translator [and Confessor]

In 1854 Neale co-founded the Sisterhood of St. Margaret, an order of women in the Anglican Church dedicated to nursing the sick. Many Anglicans in his day, however, were very suspicious of anything suggestive of Roman Catholicism. [Good job those days are gone!] Only nine years earlier, John H. Newman had encouraged 'Romish' practices in the Anglican Church, and had ended up joining the 'Romanists' himself. This encouraged the suspicion that anyone like Neale was an agent of the Vatican, assigned to destroy the Anglican Church by subverting it from within [Oh! So that's what's happening to the 'British Church'. But this time it isn't 'barbarian' tribes; it's self-destruction! Seems we're doing just fine without any putative 'Romanist' agents provocateurs.]. Once Neale was attacked and mauled at a funeral of one of the Sisters. From time to time unruly crowds threatened to stone him or to burn his house. [Hence my claim that he truly is a Confessor. Sounds like the yobs screaming obscenities at each other right now outside my study window in the public carpark - erm - my front garden. Good job my daugher is asleep! At least Joliet Jake and Elwood Blues understood: don't mess with nuns! Henry VIII learnt that lesson the hard way!] He received no honor or preferment in England, and his doctorate was bestowed by an American college (Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut). [Cheeky yanks. Must be their libertine, multicultural mentality: 'give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free'.] However, his basic goodness eventually won the confidence of many who had fiercely opposed him, and the Sisterhood of St. Margaret survived and prospered. [Indeed they did. Here's the blessed evidence:]

From Anglican Communion Religious Communities:

Society of St Margaret (Boston) (SSM)
Society of St Margaret (East Grinstead) (SSM)
Society of St Margaret (Hackney) (SSM)
Society of St Margaret (Walsingham) (SSM)

Project Canterbury also have a shrine to our beloved Patron and Confessor.

Patron John Mason Neale, Confessor to the Anglican Catholic Faith, ora pro nobis!

Quaestio II: Ever Felt Like Father Christmas?

And now for something completely different. It'sssss...

Time for a bit of priestly poetry:

Whatever be thy Sacred Quest
Which stops thee taking too much rest,
Dost ever thou both hear and see
That someone stands - a sentry he!
A-glaring, scaring, rags a-wearing
Foul and fix'd with motives mix'd -
'Twixt thee and priestly sanctity?

And might she look a bit like barmy Bridgekeeper Terry Gilliam, saying:

Stop! Answer me these questions three
Ere the Other Side you see:

1. Wwwwhat is the Christian name of every worshipper in your parish (even those who've never told you)?
2. Wwwwhat are the quests - erm - needs of every worshipper in your parish (even those they've never told you)?
3. Wwwwhat is your favourite posture for exercising your psychic - erm - priestly gifts (like Clairvoyance, best done on your knees - where I also record my visions as rubrics)?
   

Right. Hmm... Let's see, there's Aaron, Abigail, Adam, Adrian, Adrianne, Ann...needa? No wait...

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Fallen have you, Vicar? For goodness' sake! The shame of it! Really, Vicar!

It seems you didn't know the one 'twixt thee and priestly sanctity' isn't a barmy Bridgekeeper.

It's a smarmy Scorekeeper! Her name - and well should you know it, Vicar, for she certainly knows yours - is Anita. Her surname is Lott. Like you, Vicar, she has a title, you know: Mrs.

Mrs Anita Lott, that most querulous parish reticent - erm - resident.

Her needs - and well should you know them, Vicar- are numerous. Each is more troublesome than the last. But apparently you forgot - erm - failed to know her latest need, though again she failed - erm - forgot to mention it. Because that poor, specious - erm - precious lamb, Mrs Anita Lott, is in hospital for a hip surgery... since last Tuesday!

For goodness' sake! The shame of it! Really, Vicar!

You've been neglecting her! You must pray that she'll forgive you lest she and those in whom she confides further malign God, the Church - and lastly you!

And you must assure her it shall never happen again! To ensure you keep that priestly vow, you must pray to be infused with the psychic - erm - priestly gift of clairvoyance!

And who's our most adept Intercessor, Vicar?

Father Christmas, of course.

So setting aside all sacrilege - erm - satire, I'm dead serious about the Holy Gift and this Sacred Quest.

Stop! Answer, you, these questions two:

1. Do you ask every little child's Patron Psychic - erm - Saint, Nicholas of Myra to help you in your quest to earn your Church Commissions' stipend and church parishioners' trust?
2. Do you seek the Holy Gift?

Yes. No. Wait...

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Fallen, again Vicar? That really isn't a good sign.

Jolly old Saint Nick already knows your name and needs, and if you've been naughty or nice. So back to your knees and your psychic - erm - priestly duties, Vicar! Back to thy Sacred Quest! And why in God's name are you reading this blog? A blog, Vicar?

For goodness' sake! The shame of it! Really, Vicar!

Stop! Answer, you, these questions two:

1. Don't you have needy little children - erm - parishioners to visit?
2. Are you leaving yet?
   

Yes. No. wait...

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Three falls in one reading, Vicar. That just isn't good form now, is it? Perhaps you're the one who needs to be in hospital!

Oh, and while you're there...

Quaestio I. Christian Service: Sentence, Stint or Sacrament?

At least three vocations involving the idea of service occur in the New Testament.

'Sentence': Bond Service (s.v., Greek doulos, e.g., Onesimus in Philemon)

• Initiation is conviction. Whether a debtor, prisoner or slave, this sort of service is servitude.
  
• Termination is manumission.
  
• Dignity is deferred. Bond service is inherently depersonalising. The servant has few if any civil rights.
  

'Stint': Military Service (s.v., Greek stratos, Latin solidararius, 'someone who served in the Roman Army for pay.')

• Initiation is SACRAMENTVM.
  
• Termination is expiration. Expiration of Term of Service (ETS) was 25 years for the Roman Army, and is currently 22 years in the British Army.
  
• Dignity is derived. Military service is personal and collegial, but the soldier's civil rights are contingent on some form of Military Law (not to be confused with Martial Law, a 'system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice').

'Sacrament': Apostolic Service (s.v., Greek diakonos)

• Initiation is ordination.
  
• Termination is dormition (death).
• Dignity is conferred. Like Military Service, Apostolic Service is personal and collegial, but also charismatic. The charisms are 'handed-on' (Greek, paradosis, Latin: traduction) by Apostles and their Successors, conveying efficacious power and authority by God the Holy Spirit, the divine Person who deifies human persons.
  

A. Bond Service as a salutary motif in modern times. This vocation has fallen out of popular favour. Politically, modern democracies promote liberty, fraternity and equality as 'inalienable' human cum civil rights. Philosophically, humanism (all types) and personalism resist valorising slavery and indentured servanthood.

B. Military Service as a salutary motif in modern times. This vocation is perennial and popular, both politically and philosophically. It is also quite necessary, human nature (not persons) being the way it is.

Exegetically, it is difficult to find contexts with individual soldiers, at least in the NT. Usage is usually 'army' or 'host'. That in itself seems instructive, especially if you think the idea of communio is epistemically basic to being Christian (and being-as-such, come to that).

However, the soldier motif is especially salient in baptismal liturgies. Here's the one from Common Worship:

		Signing with the Cross
		The president or another minister makes the sign of the cross on the forehead of each candidate, saying
		Christ claims you for his own.
		Receive the sign of his cross.
		The president may invite parents, godparents and sponsors to sign the candidates with the cross. When all the candidates have been signed, the president says
		Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified.
All		Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ
		against sin, the world and the devil,
		and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life.
		May almighty God deliver you from the powers of darkness,
		restore in you the image of his glory,
		and lead you in the light and obedience of Christ.
All		Amen.

The BCP (1662) also uses the martial metaphor:

Then the Priest shall take the Child into his hands, and shall say to the Godfathers and Godmothers, Name this Child. And then naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the Child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the Water discreetly and warily, saying,

I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

But if they certify that the Child is weak, it shall suffice to pour Water upon it, saying the foresaid words,
I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Then the Priest shall say, E receive this Child into the congregation of Christ's flock, *and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner, against sin, the world, and the devil; and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end. Amen. * here the Priest shall make a Cross upon the Child's forehead.

It is difficult not to imagine Constantine's vision: In hoc signo vinces!

Incidentally, I think the BCP gets it right by placing the Signing after the Baptism. How in God's name, and I mean that exactly and literally, can you Sign children - especially by name! - before they are even baptised Christians? What was the rationale for CW changing the order and completely removing the rite for naming the child? Whatever. Until I'm able to affirm CW's logic, I shall continue to use the BCP sequence:

1. Naming
2. Baptising
3. Signing

C. Apostolic Service as a salutary motif in modern times. This motif is favoured by Catholics. As a sacrament, it carries quite a lot of the ethos, not just the etymos, of soldiering. Apostolic service as a political and philosophical notion is fully integrated with Catholic theology. Catholic Social Teaching certainly affirms the dignity of human persons.

Does affirming diaconal dignity necessarily detract from diaconal humility? Per diocesan instructions, invitations to both my diaconal and persbyteral ordinations read:

God Willing,
The Right Reverend {he}
Bishop of {see}
Will Ordain
{me}
To the Sacred Order of {Deacons | Priests}
In Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

But problems certainly arise from a sacramentology that is too low ('snake-belly low' per the Bishop who graciously ordained me). Functional cum vocational notions of Ordination alone seem akin to an uncritical 'Christology from below'. It further suggests a myopic focus on doing at the expense of being - utility minus ontology.

In the end all of us humans must measure our character mostly by Christ - I will not say Christ alone since I affirm the Catholic idea of communio sanctorum. That's why I defer to Catholic creeds, councils and catechisms in answering theological quandaries. I'm just not clever enough to resolve all those pesky paradoxes by Scripture and my reason alone!

Addendum I: Suffering Service. Some of you will have noticed I didn't mention the most famous servant motif in Scripture: the 'Suffering Servant' of Deutero-Isaiah (e.g., chapter 53). It is often applied to Christ, e.g., the ever-popular chorus 'Surely He Hath Borne Our Griefs' in Handel's Messiah.

Yet leaving aside ecumenical considerations for the moment and granting that Isaiah 53 is proleptic of the Passion, surely He (i.e., Jesus) was wounded for our transgressions. Therefore, playing at being another Messiah is surely a sacrilege. And even trying to be the next 'blest' thing, a martyr, is frowned upon by the Church.

I look at it this way.

Martyrdom is to Christendom as Martial Law is to Military Law.

Sure, it's sometimes necessary; but it's meant niether to be sought nor desired. As a consolation, there's always Confessor status.

Further, valorising the 'suffering servant' motif seems a bit akin to masochism, at least to me. But maybe I'm just not very 'spiritual', or enough so to recognise the value of gratuitous suffering, i.e., as an end in itself.

Addendum II: Steedly Service. I've saved my favourite modernised motif for last. Meet Patsy, faithful Servant cum Steed:

Proemium: Admonition or Ammunition?

Admonish the disorderly;
encourage those of diminished soul;
support those who cannot stand alone;
be patient with everyone!

(1 Thessalonians 5.14; translation mine)

For the Clergy.

I try my best to live that verse. I memorised it twenty years ago, back when my religion was Free Church Protestant Christian (i.e., 'Christianity is a relationship not a religion'), from the New American Standard Bible.

Now, although the NASB claims to be the most accurate English translation around, I, an impeccable Greek scholar, have translated it afresh for you. Well, like our Patron at age 11, I do know a bit of Koine Greek.

May I also suggest a hermeneutical insight or two? That's a rhetorical question. Of course I may. And you may read them if you choose.

As I interpret this verse from St Paul's correspondence to the Church in Thessalonica, which was experiencing 'affliction' (Greek thlipsis), in order to help others, one must first discern and discriminate their 'need type'.

1) Those who need admonition. The Greek word I've translated 'disorderly' originally referred to soldiers acting 'out of rank'. They must renounce disorderliness and adopt Godly expectations.

2) Those who need encouragement. They are of 'diminished soul' (Greek: oligopsychous). Contentment seems impossible, since more is expected than they can possibly give. They must renounce unbounded expectations and adopt orderly ones.

3) Those who need support. They are too weak to support themselves. Sadly, people who aren't helped at type 2) may move into this type. They must lay aside all expectations and simply rest in God.

And the imperative binding them all? Be patient with everyone!

Now there are few prospects that frighten an Anglican priest or deacon more than 'Godly admonition' from a bishop. Let me reassure one or two of you who might be trying to anticipate.

You can stop that compulsion! And I've never received Godly admonition...though I did come close just once.

I did the internship for my theology degree in Dallas. I was placed in a lovely, ancient (in Dallas terms, i.e., 1890) Anglo-Catholic parish. As a freshly ordained deacon, one of my first diaconal roles was to sing the Exultet at the Easter Vigil, 'the most important mass of the liturgical year'. What an honour!

If you know me well, you'll also know that I was 'chomping at the bit', to use an American idiom. The Choirmaster commended and handed over to me a lovely Exultet setting in English with Gregorian chant notation. It was approved for the Church of England, which certainly raised my Anglophile smile even further up my face. So I sang that Exultet, chanted the Gospel, and set the Altar: all those 'orderly' things Angl0-Catholic deacons do at the Easter Vigil.

After mass, as my wife and I were leaving for home, and I was still aglow, my mentor said, 'Deacon, can you come to my office for a moment please?' Which of course I did. Happily my wife was happy to stay as well. It was quite a long drive home. Soon it got quite a lot longer.

He was livid. I'd committed a grave transgression of canon law by using a form different than the only one authorised, i.e., The Book of Common Prayer 1979. I pleaded, 'But Father, surely I'm on safe ground using a Church of England setting'. Not so. I'd broken the rules, and he was as adamant as he was canonically compliant. 'If I told the Bishop you'd get a Godly admonition. But I won't tell... this time.'

The upside of that American attitude is, ironically, its orderliness. Similarly, it is expected that through the Sacrament of Ordination,

• bishops should mostly do episcopal things,
• priests should mostly do sacerdotal (priestly) things, and
• deacons should mostly do diaconal things.

Through the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Order of the Laity should mostly do everything else, since they're empowered to do them. I do rather miss that American Anglican obsession with orders. For here I know no permanent deacons, those empowered for service and to bridge Church and Society. Thus, English Anglican priests typically are expected to do

• everything we were ordained to do as priests, plus
• everything we were ordained to do as transitional deacons, plus
• everything we were confirmed to do as laity.

That's theologically valid, but practically impossible. One curates' training manual I've read puts it bluntly as a warning to the newly ordained: expect 'unbounded expectations'.

I had a chat with a priest in another deanery than mine about the alarming number of English Anglican clergy breakdowns, both personal and marital. He stated without any trace of dissent that only two types of priest exist.

a) Workaholics. They are expected to work six days per week, generally 8.00am-10.00pm, taking a meal at home if time permits. Some will manage to delegate some work. They take one day off, preferably a weekday, since Saturdays are for 'being available' to working parishioners and writing sermons.

b) Lazy.

Soon I surmised which type I am.

But if all priests necessarily work either too much or not enough, then can a priest ever be truly virtuous? Both extremes are vicious, at least to my American mind.

So my first urge is to admonish those who accept this grim dichotomy with such glib deliberation. Surely it's better to correct such disorder than simply to accept it.

But I stopped my tongue short of those admonishing words, if not quite my fingers from typing these. My colleague was simply reporting – not supporting – such disorder. Obviously, few needful clergy are truly amongst the deliberately 'disorderly'. Most are 'of diminished soul' or 'cannot stand alone', and need patient encouragement and support.

Otherwise, helpful admonition could become harmful ammunition.

FrD+

Ranticon above is my own creation using a Wikipedia public image, and Despair.com's Parody Motivator Generator. Please give me credit if you use it elsewhere. Despair.com is in Austin, the Capitol of the Great State of Texas. Texas rules; therefore Despair.com is an ancillary co-regent.