Feeding the Five Thousand

As promised Michael Horsburgh's sermon at St James as published in pdf on the St James website. Also please read Doorman-Priest's sermon on this same topic. So many aspects to consider. The paragraphing and highlighting is mine.

ON EATING TOGETHER1

A sermon preached by Associate Professor Michael Horsburgh in Saint James’ Church, King Street, Sydney, on the Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost, 3 August 2008

I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you. 2
So says Shylock to Bassanio in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. As a Jew, Shylock will not eat with Gentiles. Given the anti-Semitism that underlies Shakespeare’s play, there may be some wisdom in his reluctance, but that is not its source. Rather, he will not eat with Gentiles for religious reasons. This is most clearly shown in his linking of eating, drinking and praying. He will join them in the ordinary activities of commercial life but he will neither eat nor pray with them. One cannot help thinking that the words might also have been said by those bishops staying away from the Lambeth Conference.

But I come to this quotation by way of beginning our thoughts about this morning’s gospel.
Jesus is followed into a deserted place by a large crowd, said to be comprised of five
thousand men plus the accompanying women and children. As evening approached, the disciples came to Jesus, concerned about feeding such a large crowd. They asked Jesus to send them away. Jesus replied that they should feed the crowd themselves, to which they replied that they have very little food. Jesus asked them to bring what they have to him. He blessed the food, broke it and distributed it to the crowd. Everyone was fed and there were twelve baskets of leftovers.
This is surely an authentic story; it appears in all four gospels.3 Matthew and Mark also have a parallel story of the feeding of four thousand, which is arguably a repetition of the same event.4
In that case, there are six accounts of the same miracle, which makes the story not
only authentic but very important. The stories all have similar contents, including the need to feed the multitude, the discovery of a small amount of food, and the large quantity of leftovers.

Now is, of course, the time to ask the quintessentially modern question: what actually
happened here? I say that this is a modern question only because we are the ones who are in search of explanations. We ought not to think that the gospel writers and their hearers and readers were either stupid or gullible. They knew as well as we do that five loaves and two fishes cannot feed over five thousand people and leave so much still to be eaten. Only their knowledge of the unusual nature of the event could account for its being remembered and written down. After all, if this happened every day, it would be commonplace. They knew that this was a miracle but they did not have our thirst for scientific explanation. Neither did they discount things that they could not explain or imagine that there must be an explanation, if only they could find it. We might say that they had more faith than we do or, to put it more exactly, they gave a different significance to such events.
While we might think that our predecessors failed to ask the obvious questions, we need to learn from them how to invest these stories with a true significance. We must not allow our quite proper question and its possible answers to obscure the meaning of the story.

Five different kinds of answers have been given to what actually happened. The first is that it happened exactly as it is recorded; Jesus made the small amount of food go around everyone.
The second explanation derives from Albert Schweitzer, who suggested that this was a
prototype sacrament in which small amounts were distributed to everyone and the story became inflated over time.
Third, this was a lesson in unselfishness and, following the example of Jesus, everyone shared the food they had brought with them.
Fourth, this story is a development of a time when Jesus and his followers survived on short rations in the desert.
These four explanations acknowledge that there was a real basis to the story but the fifth suggestion is that it has no factual basis. It is instead an allegory of the Eucharist and the fulfilment of all things when Jesus returns.5

I don’t know whether any of these accounts impresses you but I want this morning to
consider one discussion that is of the third kind of explanation: the lesson in unselfishness.
Some scholars consider this to be too facile an explanation to have any credibility. In part this is due to the idea that such a simple explanation can hardly account for the importance that the story has in the gospel record. While selfishness is a common human trait, so also is altruism. And while an occasion on which one overcomes the other might be noticeable, it is hardly miraculous. But the Catholic author Gil Bailie6 takes an importantly different slant to this explanation by setting it within its New Testament cultural context. Bailie begins with noting the significance of sharing food in the Jewish community of Jesus’ day; it was a dangerous activity.

The gospel of Mark, chapter 7, reports an incident in which the Pharisees berate Jesus
because his disciples ate food without first washing their hands. The gospel includes several verses explaining the Pharisees’ rules about washing. Whilst we might regard this as a quite proper sanitary practice, the Pharisaic objection is not that their hands were unwashed in our sense, but that they were defiled by possible contact with ritually unclean things. Thus the food they touched would also be defiled and its eating would render their bodies defiled. The possibility of such ritual defilement was very real and its consequences severe, requiring ritual cleansing and additional sacrifices.
Scrupulous persons had also to be careful of whom they dined with. This is why the
Pharisees were so concerned that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, including, it appears, prostitutes. Leviticus required ritual cleansing after sexual activity, so prostitutes were bound to be ritually unclean, having too much sex too frequently. As Bailie points out, Jesus was making a significant statement by his flouting of these rules: The meals Jesus shared with the outcasts were not, therefore, simply the occasion for the delivery of his message. They were the message. They served as “prophetic signs” meant to manifest the meaning of Jesus’ ministry.7
That meaning was the inclusion of the outcast in the kingdom.
Now we come to the hungry crowd in the deserted place. Bailie says:
… most religious-minded Jews of the time would have taken the precaution of bringing with them enough bread or dried fish to insure that they would not be forced to eat food whose ritual purity was in doubt. But taking the precaution of bringing a supply of ritually clean food would have been only one hurdle, and perhaps not the largest one. For eating these provisions while in the company of others of uncertain moral and religious character would have placed one in jeopardy of moral contamination from sinners and pagans. The fact that Jesus had a reputation for attracting and tolerating the socially marginal would have added to the anxiety of observant Jews in this regard. Not knowing the moral and religious status of those sitting nearby would have made many reluctant to bring out whatever provisions they had with them.
That this barrier could and should be broken down was Jesus’ suggestion. Bailie concludes:
By now the reader will have guessed what I think the miracle was. Jesus opened their hearts, and they, in turn, opened their satchels, and the greatest miracle of all occurred. Following a pattern that is still today embedded in the Catholic Mass, Jesus preached of a God of love and forgiveness and then invited those who heard his message to sit down together and live for a moment in the “kingdom” about which he was preaching.

So we can see that Bailie not only uses the third type of explanation, that of overcoming reticence about sharing, he links the miracle directly to the eucharist, making an allegory out of the reality, which is the fifth kind of explanation.
Whether or not you find this account satisfactory is not the point of my sermon this morning.

I want to go on from this explanation and explore how the miracle seen in this way can illumine our faith journey. My starting point is to note that the single most significant aspect of the divisions within Christianity and within the Anglican Communion is a reluctance to join others at the Lord’s Table. The services in this church contain an invitation to all baptised Christians to join us in communion. That invitation is itself a remarkable thing. It cannot be made in Orthodox or Roman Catholic services. It will not be made in sectarian meetings where close attention is paid to judging the worthiness of communicants. In the meetings of Anglican Primates those dissatisfied with the Episcopal Church for its consecration of Gene Robinson first decline to receive communion alongside the Episcopal Church Primate. By inventing the peculiar doctrine of ‘episcopal taint’, some Anglicans exclude bishops who have ordained women as well as both the men and women they have ordained. We need to note that the concept of ‘tainted hands’ is almost exactly the concept of ritual defilement against which Jesus argued.

One of the characteristics of such ritual exclusions as the Pharisees exercised is a high degree of uncertainty about one’s acceptability to God. Far from living as persons accepted by God’s grace, such people see themselves as having to achieve acceptability. It is inevitable in such a case that the exclusion of others becomes a way of achieving one’s own inclusion.
Another way of putting this is speak of identity. Only a sure identity can withstand the
temptation of uncertainty. In Jesus’ day, observant Jews found themselves in an increasingly cosmopolitan world. Perforce they had to associate with Gentiles and with their fellow Jews who succumbed to the foreign ways. They thought that it was imperative to insist on ever stricter standards in order to preserve their cultural identity. In some ways their reaction was similar to that of some Islamic communities today. It is, however, ironic that their identity, which is an interior thing, found itself turning to external observances for support.

In the light of this, we need to understand what great danger we are in when we exclude others or cut ourselves off from converse with those with whom we disagree. This morning’s gospel teaches us at least that.

If we need more confirmation, we might turn briefly to this morning’s story of Jacob
wrestling with the angel. While researching this story I came across a reference to
Rembrandt’s painting of the scene. Not surprisingly, this has been a popular subject for artists. Most depict two muscular men struggling together, one of them with wings.
Rembrandt’s painting is quite different. Far from engaging in an epic battle, the two
protagonists are almost in an embrace. One commentator says that they are dancing rather than wrestling. The angel looks at Jacob with compassion and love, while Jacob reluctantly turns to look at his assailant. This struggle is not about overcoming or being overcome. It is about being loved by God and about the transformed identity that God’s love brings. Its outcome is a new name for Jacob and, on the next day, reconciliation with his brother.8
The uncertain and fearful Jacob is transformed by this encounter with God just as the uncertain and fearful hearers were transformed by Jesus in this morning’s gospel. Both by invitation and by gift, our identity is transformed by the God who loves us. How then will we dare not to share our table? How then will we dare to imagine that the love that transforms us is not present with others?

1 Readings: Genesis 32:22-31; Psalm 17:1-7, 16; Romans 9:1-8; Matthew 14:13-21.
2 William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene iii, line 36.
3 See Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-13.
4 See Matthew 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-10.
5 See http://girardianlectionary.net/year_a/proper13a.htm
6 See http://www.test-cornerstone.org/
7 Gil Bailie, Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads, pp. 212-215. New York: Crossroad, 1995.
http://girardianlectionary.net/res/vu_loaves.htm
8 See also Walter Brueggemann, http://www.thewords.com/articles/walterjacob.htm and Claire Amos, http://www.rethinkingmission.org/article_clare.htm

Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 1606 – 1669
Jacob Wrestling with the Angel
http://www.artbible.info/art/large/89.html

Today at St James

The sermon on "The Feeding of the Five Thousand" began with words of Shylock from "The Merchant of Venice"
' I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you,
walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat
with you, drink with you, nor pray with you.'

The preacher continued "Does that not sound like certain Bishops who refused the invitation to Lambeth"

Hopefully the full sermon will be online in a few days and I will post more.

Sadly our Organist is leaving. Peter has just gained a position teaching music and religion at one of our leading Sydney Catholic College 'St Josephs'. He related how he asked at the interview if they were happy to have an Anglican teaching religion and they said, coming from St James, King Street he is more Catholic than the Catholics.
At the door I told our assistant priest who had just presided at the Eucharist, that I have spent 25 years teaching in Catholic schools. When I started I was an Evangelical and when I left I was an Anglo-catholic. Father John laughed and said 'At that rate Peter will cross the Tiber.'

Starbucks closing, Hooray

In 2001, on a Sunday morning in Auckland, I visited my first Starbucks. They were already in Sydney but not located where I hung out. However I was not impressed.

Occasionally I have visited the one at Circular Quay after the afternoon Symphony at the Opera House (about 4pm) because the other coffee shops nearby have closed catering mainly for the officeworker trade, are too expensive (tourist trade) or have nowhere sheltered to sit. Lately we have preferred to go without, the coffee is awful.

I did visit one at LA airport and another in the Garden District of New Orleans in 2007 and both times the experience was even worse than the Quay. "Dishwater" comes to mind.
Now they are closing 61 0f the 84 stores in Australia, sadly not the one at the Quay, I guess the tourists will keep it open.

I agree with the comments in the Herald. A nearby Gloria Jeans (my preferred chain) manager to one branch that is closing.
He said he did not expect his business to benefit from the closure of the nearby Starbucks because the customers who went there were "not interested in real coffee anyway".

and another comment from a customer

"why would you want to sit around a pretend lounge room drinking a weak and expensive coffee, when you can go around the corner and have the real thing?"

The Herald writer concluded.
In my view, the key reason that they have been so unsuccessful in Australia is their inability to adjust to local market conditions. While the company's British and Asia expansion took it to markets without strong coffee traditions, Australia, with its history of European immigration, was always going to be a test. Starbucks has been trying to sell a watered down product in one of the most sophisticated and lively coffee markets in the world.

Why I just love ordering 'un expresso" in Paris and yes, the Turkish coffee in Istanbul was heavenly. Another of the many reasons to be thankful for Australia's migration program.

Lambeth and NZ

Reading the blogs on the right, especially about Lambeth has been very time consuming lately and also depressing. I will leave most of it to them as anything I could say would be just second hand.
On Saturday, as mentioned earlier, I attended a meeting at the St James Institute on "Do Australian Anglicans have a future?" It was led by Bishop Tom Frame who was Bishop to the Australian Defence Force but is now Director of St Mark's Theological Centre. He seemed to be glad to have relinquished the role of a Bishop.

He had some interesting things to say about where he thinks the church will be in 2028. He thinks there will be 3 types of Anglican churches.
1. Mega churches (already one in Castle Hill, Sydney and another somewhere in Melbourne) with over 10 on staff and more than 750 parishioners. Exclusive in outlook so I won't be there.
2. Urban/regional churches with 2 on staff and 100 to 750 , inclusive and welcoming, I guess like St James, King Street today so obviously my choice except I will probably be in a nursing home by then :-)
3. Small house churches with honorary staff and less than 50. I do not think I would like these. I gain much benefit from liturgy, processions and choirs.

I did not like Bishop Frame's comment that we should consider the plight of African churches having to live with Islam. It seemed to be this common idea of supporting them at the expense of the many GLBT people in the west (and also in Africa?)

I am afraid Lambeth will leave us in much the same position as at the end of the previous one in '98. TEC and Canada may not accept that and go its own way but most dioceses in Australia (obviously not Sydney) will claim they are inclusive of all people including GLBT but we will remain 2nd class members who cannot be ordained while in an open relationship and whose relationships cannot be blessed. That, to me, is unacceptable.

New Zealand, on the other hand, is much more welcoming. I know for certain that some parishes in the Diocese of Auckland bless same-sex relationships and the Diocese of Dunedin has ordained a man living in a same-sex relationship.

Just a week before I last visited Dunedin in 2006, Bishop George Connor had ordained as a deacon Rev Juan Kinnear, a man who was living in a same sex relationship. There was a great amount of press about this and it was opposed by some evangelicals within the diocese and a group of evangelicals from the neighbouring Diocese of Christchurch. Although some of the NZ bishops had reservations, they did not oppose it but I had understood there was a moratorium on his further ordination to the priesthood. I am glad to now find (in the NZ gay press, not the Anglican) that his ordination as a priest occurred late last year without any publicity. He is an honorary associate priest in the cathedral. More research has found the following statement from Juan about his first ordination as a deacon.

The Revd Juan Kinnear shares some thoughts on his recent ordination

Part of his statement follows:
The Diocese of Dunedin has a long established practice of welcoming suitable, committed Christian homosexual men and women into ordained ministry. What occurred on 4 November 2006 is no recent innovation, but a continuation of the diocese’s refusal to exclude gay men and women from full participation in the life of our Church. The locus of authority within Anglicanism is the diocese and its bishop. Overarching questions about how theological divergence can be reconciled with the notion of a Church Catholic are unlikely to be resolved by the creation of an Anglican magesterium or the implementation of a Covenant with which to beat up those with whom we disagree.

I often wonder what life would be like in an ideal world. Perhaps we would all be happily married, with two girls and a boy, a Labrador and a Volvo station wagon in the driveway. Who knows? What I do know is that we do not live in an ideal world and that, for better or worse, we are required to do our best, be as faithful and committed as we possibly can and live as joyfully as our circumstances allow. I also know that my sexual orientation is not subject to change by prayer or self discipline. I believe that I am not alone in this. So, I contend myself with the belief that I am saved by grace and called to continually seek sanctification. I thank God that I share my life with someone who cares for me with all his heart. I am committed to work for the Gospel and to be Good News to those around me. Where I fail, and I fail continuously, I ask for strength to continue on and to do better. A sinner yes, but never, ever do I buy into the idea that I am “dirty” or that my life has to be confined by a cage of words, authored by those who choose to stand in judgment over me. Joy and life in abundance!

When(If?) I move to Dunedin, I think I will worship at the Cathedral but I have found the blog of the Vicar of the parish, St John's Roslyn, in which I hope to reside (Available Light). He has just had an operation for cancer and is returning to work on Monday. His post on Gafcon is interesting but a bit of the middle way I discern in Australia (outside Sydney).

"As our church divides, as it surely must despite the Gafcon hand waving, which side do I go with? The liberal rump, now unfettered by conservative reticence? You've got to be kidding! The Gafcon conservatives, with their stifling self perceived certainties? No thank you! I have about ten years to go before retirement. Perhaps if I hunker down in St. John's Roslyn and pay all that stuff no mind, I might just make it through before I have to make that sort of choice."

I feel happier reading the comments of Bishop Gene and am thankful for the wonderful, thought provoking blessing from him (below) for which I thank Boocat. My first attempt at placing a video in my blog.

Prayer and Bishops

In wandering around the blogs, I found this amusing comment. I will not link to the person as he is from the Diocese of Nelson and has the usual evangelical views which set my teeth on edge these days. However he is referring to priests and bishops in the diocese of Christchurch.

In the 1950s the priest was rung by Bishop Warren to ask if he would like to be the Vicar of Woolston. Woolston being an excellent evangelical fit, he promptly said 'yes', to which the bishop replied, 'shouldn't you pray first?'

Some years went by and the next Bishop of Christchurch rang and said, 'I want you to go to Twizel.' Twizel being a little remote etc, the priest said to the bishop, 'I would like to pray about that.' To which the bishop replied, 'we have already prayed!'.

The priest went to Twizel!

St James Day

Yesterday was the start of our Patronal Festival at St James, King Street and I attended Choral Eucharist at 6.30pm in the evening. I thought as there was no sermon it would be over in time for me to catch the 8.10pm train and be home by 10pm but I did not account for the singing of the choir which while beautiful can be a bit long sometimes so I did not arrive home until 11pm which is way past my usual bedtime.
As I had to go to the city, I decided to make a day (well afternoon and evening) of it and went first to a concert being put on in the church by Southend Boys' and Girls' choir. The poor things had just arrived from the UK the day before (lots of yawning). It was probably the coldest day this year in Sydney (not much above 12'C in the city) and rained most of the day. Some of their mothers were talking to us and mentioned it was 29'C in London. (Hey, it is winter here). Sadly there were only 6 unattached people in the audience including our rector and organist. Hopefully they will have a better attendance at the Opera House on Sunday afternoon when they will be singing with the Sydney Male Choir. At least today is sunny, although a chilly start by Australian standards. I bought one of their CDs as I felt so sorry for them.

Then after coffee and cake (sorry doctor I cannot resist), I went to the movies to see 'The Band's Visit' which is a mildly funny, sad, thoughtful movie.

However the point of this post is the Choral Eucharist. There were about 100 there on a cold wet Friday night and the entrance hymn was "For All the Saints who from their Labours rest" which really had me reminiscing.
In the 60's when I was at university I attended St Philip's Eastwood although I did not live in the parish (I seem to make a habit of that). It was only 15 minutes away by train and lots of my friends from University attended. The Rector, Rev Eric Mortley was well known for his intellectual sermons (of course evangelical but not like today). We always knew when it would be less meaty but evangelistic if there was no tape recorder mounted on the pulpit. I sometimes felt a bit sorry for his less academic parishioners. At his funeral many years later I was very uncomfortable finding myself surrounded by all the friends of those years with their doctorates. I had a basic Arts degree and post grad teaching diploma. Since then I have added another post grad diploma in library and information science but nothing like my contemporaries of those days. Rev Mortley's son, a close friend in those days, became a professor of ancient languages and chancellor at a number of universities.

Anyway, last night the singing of "For All the Saints" took me back to the packed Evening Prayer services at St Philips when we would often sing that hymn. In the 60's young people went to Fellowship on Sunday evening and onto Evening Prayer, life has changed. Obviously not like St James today but uplifting none the less.

My local church Holy Trinity, Concord West was asking me to return to assist with the youth group. I did not want to go, it was the antithesis of the intellectualism of St Philips. I was singing in the choir at Holy Trinity in the morning. I put my name forward for various elected positions in the Fellowship at St Philips and it was expected I would be successful in one of them. For some reason I was not (perhaps there was some resistance to my coming from out of the parish). My friends were shocked and immediately offered to co-opt me to the committee but I felt it was God's guidance and became Assistant Fellowship leader at Holy Trinity. It was difficult but after 2 years I became the Fellowship Leader, a position I held for 3 more years. Hopefully I was where God wanted me to be. It certainly gave me a more practical outlook on the mission to young people.

Back to this weekend at St James. I will soon be catching the train down to the city again to hear Bishop Tom Frame speak on "Do Australian Anglicans have a future?"
Bishop Frame was Bishop to the Australian Defence Force but is now Director at St Mark's National Theological Centre. He will also be preaching tomorrow at our Festival Choral Eucharist. Perhaps I will blog about him later.
Bishop Alfred Holland, retired Bishop of Newcastle will be preaching at Choral Evensong. Note that although none of the Sydney bishops are at Lambeth , they are not attending the patronal festival at St James either.

St James and World Youth Day

From our Church's Weekly News to show all Anglicans in the Diocese of Sydney are not as curmudgeonly as the Dean and Bishops.
St James is located opposite the Catholic Cathedral.

PRAYER WITH BROTHERS OF TAIZÉ AN ENORMOUS SUCCESS
During the week we have had a once-in-a-lifetime experience at St James' with hundreds, indeed thousands, of young people and many older people in St James' at all times of the day and evening, but especially during the 12 times of Prayer with the Brothers of Taizé. They came from every country imaginable and, as part of the prayers, we heard the Scriptures read and the Lord's Prayer prayed in many languages. The church itself was decorated in orange and gold and awash with candles. The large cross from Taizé and the icons, softly lit with candles, added to the sense of prayerfulness and attentiveness on God. People milled on the steps and porticos, coming in or going out. The prayer times themselves, led by the brothers in their white habits, and supported by a young choir and instrumentalists, were simple, still and meditative. As the city was caught up in World Youth Day, there is no doubt that St James' was well and truly ''in the thick of it'' and it was a great place of prayer and fellowship. I am grateful to all the members of our staff, together with the many volunteers who assisted, who worked so had to make our involvement with World Youth Day 2008 such a memorable experience.
— Fr Peter

Supermarket Shindig

Please can I beat Madpriest to a religious joke.

A man goes to confession and tells his priest that he has sinned but that he would like, one day, to go to heaven. What should he do to get there ?

The priest hears his confession and says to him: " My son, to get to heaven you should give up smoking, gambling, drinking and sex. Live a clean and godly life and surely you will join the angels."

The man takes this on board, goes away, and does his best. But on returning to the confessional the next week he has to admit that not all has gone well.

"Father, I gave up smoking, gambling and drinking. It was hard, but with the grace of God I did it," he said. "But I found I couldn't give up sex. The other day I saw my loving wife, her gorgeous body leaning over the freezer, and I had to make love to her there and then, right on the spot."

The priest was shocked. " My son, they won't like that at all in heaven," he said.

"I understand," said the man. "They weren't too crazy about it in Woolworths, either."

On the other hand, a wonderful bishop

My broadband plan gave me 1 Gb per month at 512kbps after which it reduced to dial-up speed (64kbps) until the new month began (actually the 23rd). Since becoming involved in blogs this has been happening earlier and earlier, leaving me with nearly a fortnight of slow and frustrating speed. Knowing I would be away for 2 months I delayed changing the plan. Last Friday (10th), it slowed down and I had to be content with reading about Bishop Gene's sermon at Putney as any attempt to watch it would have been excruciating.

I rang the company to increase my plan to 5 Gb and speed from 512 to 1500kbps (not sure I need that much but it comes with the plan). I remember when I thought 64kbps on a new modem was great. The rules say it would change on the 23rd but the lady on the phone was very nice and offered to upgrade me overnight so today I am back to fast speed (not sure I have the 1500 yet) and was able to watch and hear Bishop Gene without any delays.

Wonderful, wonderful man. I only wish I could have heard such a sermon when I was in my 20's but the times were not right, people did not discuss sexuality and gay sex was illegal anyway.

In case you are someone who has not watched it "Be not afraid"

Why Sydney Oh God?

It is claimed Sydney is a godless, pleasure and money seeking city. Is it any wonder most see the churches as irrelevant when we have two Archbishops who could only be regarded as complete jokes except they are serious.

I do not say much about Cardinal Pell but I taught in Catholic schools for many years and know most of my fellow teachers were exasperated by him. He is in the limelight at the moment at World Youth Day and yesterday he said
"Jesus didn't run around handing out condoms, we preach what Jesus taught."
He didn't drive round in a popemobile either, nor wear funny red caps and he did not condemn homosexuality.
He also said
"No western country is producing enough babies to keep the population stable, no western country"
This in a country suffering water shortages and facing food shortages in the long term but then Pell has admitted he is a climate change sceptic. He is wrong anyway, Australia's population growth is still increasing even before immigration.As for the other Archbishop of Sydney, I have written enough but must publish the wonderful cartoon from Madpriest.