That’s the best she can do? Parrot statements which real scholars such as Dr Robert Gagnon have totally refuted dozens and dozens of times. At the same time, she uses what the Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon calls “the Silly Shellfish Argument,” where she tries to equate the sexual purity code with the ritual dietary code of the Mosaic Law.

I would expect such sophomoric sophistry from first year seminary students. To hear this twaddle from the leader of the Episcopal Church tells me volumes about what is wrong with the Episcopal Church in the US. Since I have read similar “arguments” coming from LGBT advocates in England, I assume that there are plenty of people over there who go in for this shallow sort of reasoning. So much, then, for the Church of England’s ability to teach what the Bible actually says with any logical and academic rigor.

Dr. Jefferts-Schori and Vickie Gene are great representatives of the “intellectual” arguments of the Loon Left in TEC.

Which is why so many people who think with the right head are leaving in droves!

-Jim+

Yes, Allen, that’s the best she can do…

And now you see why Episcopalians don’t check their minds at the door: their minds fit nicely in their pockets. No need to check them.

Follow up question: which of the other sexual prohibitions adjacent to that of same-sex acts in Leviticus are now ok? Sex with your mother?

Ignorant @$%#@*&^%*%##@ by a !*&#$@!^% &$#* thinking she knows ANYTHING!

There. That felt better, far better than spending a minute of valueable time on this heretical whore. I mean slut, err, tramp, strumpet, siren, harpy, SEED OF SATAN!

Now THAT felt better.

Hi FW Ken,
I loved your joke.
And on your serious point, on one side of the prohibition against men having sex with men is child sacrifice and on the other side is bestiality. I think we still share these values. I hope.

OT but is Queen Kate running out of Botox?, she’s looking a bit haggarded lately.

Perpetua – Unfortunately, the Loon Left is really into child sacrifice. It’s their second sacrament besides sodomy, after all. The only reason most folks don’t recognize the sacrifice is because it happens in private with a suction device on a surgical table instead of in public an obsidian knife on a stone altar.

False shepherds serving false gods – who’d have thought the Episcopal Church would stoop to buying knock-offs!

That was “…in public WITH an obsidian knife on a stone altar.” I wish all blogs had a preview button .

Chris, I know you give your posters more freedom than do many bloggers, but Mr. Hathaway’s remark is over the top and should be removed.

I’m just all ate up with shame at her unanswerable critique of the Man of Blood, ruling over the Whore of Babylon.

I wonder what Ms. Schori thinks of the Orthodox, who won’t admit Catholics to communion (even “Eastern” Catholics). lol

Miss sippi, what fascist planet are you living on?

The only thing obscene here is the pretension of this fool to call herself a Christian, let alone a Christian LEADER, and to speak this utter worthless bull**** and think it profound, to say nothing of orthodox.

It’s one thing to think your farts smell like roses. It’s another to thing your brainfarts smell like incense.

Perhaps you think Christian charity means that we shpould be polite to traitors within the church. Nonsense! I cherish the legend of St. Nicholas slapping Arius in the face at the Council of Nicea. A more trustworthy account has St. Polycarp calling the heretic Marcion the first born of Satan to his face.

Ahh, the days when Christians had cajones.

How strange that those Evil Catholics only give communion to those people who actually believe that there is Someone in the communion to give. If the RCC is the penis-driven dungeon of oppression that Katie, et al believe it is, why would they want to take communion in the RCC? Methinks that someone’s conscience is being tweaked!

With the massive defections of Christians from the ECO; the plunge in new memberships; the rising deficits in diocesan budgets; and the continuing marginalization of the ECO as a serious faith in the larger Christian community, I have to ask you, Katie: how’s that radical inclusivity working for ya?

If you have to attack the RCC to make yourself feel better about the utter failure of your gnostic cult of leftie personality, you’re doing it wrong.

Fr. Philip, OP (ex-ECUSA cultist and priest of the Penis-Driven Dungeon of Oppression since 1996.)

Worth remembering: Bishop Kate comes from an RC family that became Episcopalians because they wanted a church where people could think for themselves (or some cliched drivel like that). Hence, she has an ex-RC’s disdain for the Catholic Church. Next, her mother apparently actually did think for herself and became Orthodox, rejecting both Kate’s religion and her purported ordination. When her mother died, she she denied the woman an Orthodox funeral, conducting an Episcopalian service her own self. I suppose you can infer what she thinks of Orthodoxy.

As to botox, I suspect they had to cut that out of the budget in favor of lawsuits. It was a hard decision, no doubt, but aren’t we proud that Kate can step up to the plate and make the hard choices when she has to!

I take it as a compliment to be told I belong to a Church that causes a great scandal. Wasn’t Christ Himself a great scandal to those who did not believe?

Not sure what you’re getting at Paula. The RC Church had a big pederasty scandal a few years ago and I wouldn’t say it was something to be proud of. Scandal by itself isn’t complimentary.

“penis-driven dungeon of oppression” is my favorite phrase of the week. Sadly I won’t be able to use it at work. lol

Ah, yes, that was one of the things that drew me to The Scarlet Woman…the opportunity to turn my brain off and let Male Oppressors (like Fr. Philip, OP) do my thinking for me.

Getting out of ECUSA’s theological Potemkin village has been an enormous relief. Good music and elegant liturgy couldn’t compensate for the intellectual hollowness.

So, Christopher, while I gather you don’t intend to join us on this side of the Tiber (although the Lord does move in mysterious ways), what do you plan to swim? The Bosphorus? Lake Geneva?

Wherever you end up, you will be in my prayers.

The shellfish argument is ignorant and embarrassing, and the criticism of the Roman Church is petty and unwarranted. Within my own memory, the Episcopal Church would knowingly commune only confirmed Anglicans (or RCs or Orthodox, at their options). The expansion to “all baptized Christians” unfortunately coincided with the decline in doctrinal standards, so now communion means little to nothing. Of course they’ll give it to anyone; why not? The retiring bishop of Utah isn’t even a baptized Christian. How can Jefferts Schori affirmatively say anything is a “scandal” when nothing has any definite meaning any more?

To aid in the analysis this pathetic answer, here is the exact transcription of the Question and Answer:

Greg Griffith: “…the youth group class here tonight. What are the precise words that you would use to explain to teenagers how it is that the bible says that homosexual behaviour is a sin, but our church should confer its blessings on it.”

Katharine Schori: “What I’ve been supportive of is gay and lesbian Christians in this church and their brothers and sisters in the larger community. My understanding of the handful of passages in the Bible that appear to speak about homosexual behaviour between men. The ones in the Old Testament are in long lists of behaviour that is forbidden to observant Jews, which lists also include lots of things that we don’t pay any attention to today like eating shellfish and wearing clothing made of more than one fibre and sex with a menstruating woman for example.

The lists in the New Testament are open to significantly more controversy. The understandings that they are prohibitions of same sex behaviour are based on the translation of a couple of words that are used nowhere else. Scholars today believe that those are likely talking about cult prostitution, which was common in Greek religion and pagan religion around the early Christian communities.

Was there a sex abuse scandal in the Church? I must have missed that.

In this case I thought the fact I explained that Jesus was a scandal to those who did not believe would clarify what type of scandal I meant.

Now for thoughts on this, Katharine Schori:

“What I’ve been supportive of is gay and lesbian Christians in this church and their brothers and sisters in the larger community. which implies that the orthodox church is not being supportive of these people, beloved of the Lord, by teaching them the truth about their behaviour?

My understanding of the handful of passages in the Bible that appear to speak about homosexual behaviour between men. So you are ignoring the anti-lesbian-behaviour passage in Romans 1:26?

The ones in the Old Testament are in long lists of behaviour that is forbidden to observant Jews, which lists also include lots of things that we don’t pay any attention to today like eating shellfish OK, one more time: read Acts 15, Katharine. (all of it – you can do it). The apostles met, they had a meeting (you should lap this stuff up) and they decided that all that shellfish stuff was only meant for observant Jews. (stay with me here) But they explicitly decided (vs 29) that “sexual immorality” applied as much to the Gentiles as the Jews. So never EVER mention shellfish again, OK? and wearing clothing made of more than one fibre and sex with a menstruating woman for example. Did you have to include that last one? More information than I needed about your personal life… gag.

The lists in the New Testament are open to significantly more controversy. From what I can see there is quite a widespread consensus actually. You just don’t like that consensus. The understandings that they are prohibitions of same sex behaviour are based on the translation of a couple of words that are used nowhere else. That really isn’t true: when Romans 1:27 says “males with males” it uses the same Greek word “arsen” for “male” as in Matthew 19:4, where Jesus says “male and female he created them.” Same common word.

Scholars today believe that those are likely talking about cult prostitution, which was common in Greek religion and pagan religion around the early Christian communities. No, only Katharine’s tame scholars believe this. It is clear from Romans 1:24 that these people were following the desires of their hearts – they weren’t caught up in some abusive relationships. Yet even though these people followed the lusts of their hearts, it was unacceptable to God.

Let’s also be clear that the predator-priests in the recent RCC scandals fully embraced the ECO’s definition of upright moral behavior for the clergy: if I can rub it, I should; if you call me a sinner for doing it, you’re a homophobe.

And the bishops who aided and abetted these pervs had long since adopted the ECO’s defintion of a “bishop”: Chief P.R. Officer and Lawsuit Respondent of the diocese. Nothing in RCC theology, philosophy, canon law, conciliar documents, the Catechism, papal encyclicals, or tradition identify sexual relationships outside the bonds of a sacramental marriage as a good thing.

Can Katie’s cult say the same? (No, I didn’t think so.)

Also, while I’m in Rant Mode, let me add that anyone who thinks the RCC is male-dominated is seriously delusional. There are three times as many women religious in the world as priests and male religious combined. Women religious own outright hospitals, nursing homes, retreat centers, universities, insurance companies, and even huge tracts of land in the US alone. One Dominican sisters’ congregation (just one) has a net worth in excess of $900 million. Half of seminary faculties are female. Almost all Clinical Pastoral Education supervisors are female. More than half of the students in theology grad schools in the US are female. Most directors of religious education, parish administrators, music directors, Catholic school teachers, and diocesan personnel are female. No one can tell me that women have no power in the RCC. I’ve been the victim of feminist (though not female) ideological oppression myself too many times to buy that sick pig.

Fr. Philip, OP (Rant Mode off)

I realized a came across as being snarky and I apologize for it. I simply meant that I consider it good that KJS is scandalized by the closed communion in the Catholic Church- it means we are doing something right.

Off Topic, but from Mr. Robinson’s web site:

————————————-
Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Last minute update

One addendum to yesterday’s posting: I have been invited to be on the President’s Platform for the inauguration/swearing in. An astounding honor!

+Gene
————————————-

In his mind, it truly IS all about Gene.

Paula, no worries…I knew you were being a sarcastic…as an old hand at being a smart aleck myself, I recognized it immediately…I just decided to riff off the scandal you mentioned to make the point that the foundations of the RCC scandal look very, very ECO.

Fr. Philip, OP

Well, give TEC a couple of more General Conventions and I will be willing to bet that they will have something else to carp about regarding Roman Catholic practice.

TEC seems to be hell bent to revise its Book of Services once again. I would not be surprised if those elitists (who know so much more than those doltish disciples of Jesus) removed all mention of the Father in the rite of Baptism.

At that point, the Roman Catholic (and the Orthodox) church will no longer recognize Episcopal baptisms as being Trinitarian. Boy will that hack off the Episcopal Elitists! There will be great weeping and wailing and gnashing of the teeth!

The bishop’s response makes me think of a saying from the late country comedian Jerry Clower: “Some people are educated beyond their intelligence.”

If they go to “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer,” the baptisms won’t be acceptable. There are probably some being done that way already in TEC, despite the current service book.

I just decided to riff off the scandal you mentioned to make the point that the foundations of the RCC scandal look very, very ECO.

I don’t see what either The Name of the Rose of Foucault’s Pendulum have to do with the scandal.

“…Noting that Episcopalians offered communion to “all baptized Christians…”

What narrow-minded Christianism! Why must one be a “baptized Christian” to receive communion?

Ed, [groan]…

Katherine, yup, you’re right…if the ECO drops the Trinitarian formula for baptism, the Episcopalian swimming the Tiber will not be considered a Christian before joining the RCIA and will have to be baptized before receiving confirmation.

I really don’t know why the ECO hasn’t dropped the Trinitarian formula already…what’s taking them so long? They’ve completely gutted every other tenet of the historical faith, why not this one?

Fr. Philip (ex-Episcopagan)

I have attended several Episcopal baptisms in the past couple of years. All were in fact done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But that was just about the only thing done according to the BCP. The rest, in every case, might best be described as “inspired by the 1979 BCP.” All the questions about sin were replaced by something along the lines of “will you try really hard to be a nice person and take good care of the earth?”

What I don’t get is why they’d be hacked at us for denying them communion. To accept communion means that you’re in communion with the teachings of the Church. They’re clearly not. Do they just want to join the club or something?

Mark Windsor -
“Do they just want to join the club or something?”

That is about the extent of the Justice Issue™ ethos which seems to drive the dilettantes and elitists in the Episcopal Club. For them communion is table fellowship and nothing more. No Real Presence; none of that icky Body and Blood stuff. It is all about affirmation and acceptance. And you are a Nazi if you do not accept them!

[...] 20, 2009 by Scott W. Chris Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal posts on Mrs. Schori who takes a swipe at Roman Catholics for not giving communion. Normally, it is pretty hard to add to such unintended self-parody, but Father Phillip pulls it [...]

The Catholic Church – scandalising Anglicans since 1534

If we’re still annoying the likes of the Presiding Bishop, we must be doing something right, after all!

Seriously, though, what was that all about?

This was the Presiding Bishop of the (or rather, The) Episcopal Church making a pastoral visit to an Episcopalian parish and discussing matters pertaining to the Episcopal church both locally, nationally, and in the context of the Anglican Communion.

Why then wander off into a little finger-wagging session about those awful Romans? That’s like the Pope breaking off in the middle of his Christmas address to the Curia to have a go at the Pure Land school of Buddhism – huh?

It betrays a certain sense of unease about your own claims to be always looking over your shoulder at what Mother Church is doing or saying, don’t you think?

Since she doesn’t believe all those prohibitions against shellfish, someone should serve her a nice fresh Pacific crab salad in a month without an “R” like July.

@Christopher: Why do people who cite the St. Nicholas punching out Arius story never remember part two, which is St. Nicholas regretting the incident?

Or perhaps you have read a different version of the gospels then I did. Does your version’s Sermon on the Plain in Luke read “Hate your enemies, call those who hate you heretical whores, curse those who curse you, and muse nostalgically on ‘the good old days’ when people had testicles,” perhaps?

Is it lonely being so hardcore and perfect? I would be quaking in my boots to say such things, because my version of the gospels says we will be judged as we judge others (perhaps your version is different on this point as well). By all means, condemn Ms. Schiori’s heretical deeds and words, and laugh at the absurdity; but what you are doing is something else entirely. Be very cautious if launching into a vulgar tirade against another human being created in God’s image makes you feel better. That is very natural; it is not, however, Christian.

trp:

“What narrow-minded Christianism! Why must one be a “baptized Christian” to receive communion?”

A number of TEO parishes have come to this very conclusion, and are consequently offering communion to any and all that walk in the door.

Me, I’d be quaking in my boots before I attributed to people things that they didn’t say. I have never personally launched into a “vulgar tirade” against Mrs. Schori.

I let people get away with quite a bit here. It’s just always been the way I’ve run my sites. This is a one-man operation and I don’t have the time or the patience to impose a speech code and aside from out-and-out obscenity, I wouldn’t know what to ban.

I value honesty. And since watching an alleged Christian leader treat the Christian faith in such a cavalier and heretical manner tends to make people emotional, I think it’s better to let people say what they think knowing that if any account is to be made, they will make it.

But if harsh language directed at religious leaders offends you, I’d suggest skipping Matthew 23.

“Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.”

Psalm 125(6)

First, did St. Nicholas regret that incident?? Let those who think so back up their assertion right now, chapter and verse!! I’ll not believe any revisionists otherwise – they’ve proved themselves mendacious totalitarians who’ll do absolutely ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to force THEIR WAY upon others at any price!!!!

Second, “joye”, if you’re the false “Rev.” Ms. Joy Mills, with your absolute TRAVESTY and PERVERSION about everything true love really is, I’ll leave you to deduce what I think about you and the devils that are really living inside you. For now, it’s enough to say that I believe St. Mary Magdalene, even in her sinful state, was a great deal better off than you are and will be without the Real, Risen Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Man AND YET God Himself!!!

So there!

[...] comment came from an Anglican site: That’s the best she can do? Parrot statements which real scholars such as Dr Robert Gagnon have [...]

There’s a difference between “harsh language” and calling Dr. Schori a “whore” or a “slut.” Thanks for your comment, Joye.

Et tu, “Miss Sippi”?? That then says a lot about you thrice-accursed “liberals” – why don’t you then go back to your own blogs where you censor us out, you stinking Commies and Nazis?? There you can enjoy your sanctimonious hypocrisy and lies unchecked!!

We conservatives and reactionaries have a right to our own space – we’ve not yet succumbed to your totalitarian régimes, and God Forbid that happens!!! If it perchance Pleases Him nevertheless to let it so happen, may He Grant that we can properly testify to Him for His Glory the way Haralan Popov, Richard Wurmbrandt and millions of others did – and still do – even in the direst possible circumstances of agonies and torture you DEMONS and DEMONESSES inflicted and are still so pouring out upon them and most certainly will continue to do literally ’till Kingdom Come!!!

Thank God for such understanding and worthy souls as Mr. Christopher Johnson (in complete contrast to Mr. Greg Griffith!). May God Richly Reward his work!!! [And this from somebody who has enough suffering imposed upon oneself as it is...]

While we’re at it, according to the Durants, Julius Cæsar’s original words to Brutus were “Kai su, teknon?” ["You tu, my child?", in Greek script "Και συ, τεκνον?"]

One more comment and I’ll be silent: yours truly knows that “slut” is a vulgar and very vile word like “f—”; however, “whore” seems to me civilised enough, just like “liar” and “hypocrite”… Fellow conservatives please correct me if necessary…

Oops, maybe I shouldn’t have brought in a personal matter relative to Mr. Greg Griffith here, except that it had been discussed in this forum something like a year or two ago…

Dovóljno! [Enough!]

Well, Sasha, I know that there are indeed grounds for questioning her attitude to theology and indeed she is veering towards heresy if not actually there already in many – most – all of her pronouncements.

But Mr. Hathaway’s little billets-doux were going a tad too far; calling the woman a whore, a slut, a tramp and a strumpet is unwarranted. There’s no evidence she’s been unfaithful to her marriage vows.

Her performance as a Christian leader of a Christian denomination is enough grounds for anger. Calling her names beyond that is just gratuitous insult.

Besides, I have my doubts about Mr. Hathaway’s bone fides in this; it’s too much reminiscent of Sinner (God bless him) and his agent provocateur role in casting the conservatives and orthodox as raving, frothing at the mouth, misogynists and loons by use of intemperate language beyond the proper degree of rebuke.

Don’t get me wrong; if the Pharisees were compared to tombs, whitewashed and ornate on the outside but full of corruption and stinking, foul rottenness within, we have warrant to call a spade a spade when we see it. But let’s stick to our lasts and not go overboard.

Fuinseoig, I’ll freely grant you that we don’t know if she’s been unfaithful to her marital vows, although there are grounds indeed to speculate that she has done so via homosexuality – and lesbians can be extremely devious and dangerous people!!! [I've known a few such, sufficiently so as to absolutely wish NEVER to cross paths with such ever again...]

However, she HAS indeed been a whore to her spiritual vows and her supposed religion (and was out to so be from day one in seminary and before)!! She’s just like VGR, who has contradicted everything he promised prior to receiving that mitre. Those two (as well as Chane, Ingham, Hiltz, Griswold et al) aren’t just heretics: they’re outright APOSTATES, where they’ve denied the complete religion in all its essentials!!!

Finally, dear Fuinseoig, can I humbly ask you to clarify the expression “let’s stick to our lasts”? “Lasts” here is a word that particularly confuses me… Thanks in advance!

Sasha,

“Stick to our lasts” is an expression alluding to a shoemaker’s last (on which he forms the shoe) to the effect that we should each stick to our own vocation. The original expression was “shoemaker, stick to your last.”

OK, Ed, thank you very much indeed!! Knowing the expression and its origins has been exceedingly helpful, especially for somebody who in some ways has been deprived from deepest childhood (among other things, not being able to truly socialise with his peers until many years past what others would do as a matter of course!!)…

What sad whining about receiving communion from the Roman Catholics. Why on earth would an Episcopalian, whose beliefs do not match those of Rome (nor of the Orthodox) *want* communion there? That actually means something! What ECUSA speakers actually mean when they complain about being refused communion is that being in communion with Anglicans means so little, being in communion with Rome or Orthodox Christianity means so *much*. They want more but can’t see there is a connection between that and what one actually believes; some things and not others. Like a marriage. It means you are faithful to one woman, not sleeping around. It is a beautiful thing, and even those who reject it can see it. They feel snubbed because the marriage isn’t “open” for exactly the same reason an Episcopalian feels snubbed by a church with reality to it.

It is nice that Greg suddenly sympathizes with the Catholic Church when one of his opponents takes a swipe. But, seriously, let’s be honest here. SF has provided abundant refuge for some of the worst anti-Catholic commentary I have seen in years.

Throughout the history of Anglicanism, anti-Catholic smears have been a ubiquitous stock in trade. Virtually all of the worst anti-Catholicism as well as the worst distortions of historical fact against Catholicism (such as the distortions about the Inquisition) have come from the various strains of the English and Scottish Reformations.

We Catholics are used to it. We are tough. We can argue our case.

That some conservative Anglicans can now sympathize with the Catholic Church when she is slighted by their own theological adversaries is something quaint and amusing, but it is not to be confused with genuine respect or esteem.

Another example of the arrogance of the Anglicans: we shall determine what you must do and what is Christian or scandalous in your church. After all we are British!!!. Yet… and yet…they are so aware of their lack of historical christian legitimacy that they crave Catholic approbation, as the fundamental Christian au8thority over the two Christian millenia for the perception of their “self worth”. Otherwise who cares what those Popish cultists do stuck as they are in mideaval biblical interpretations and their “hocus pocus” liturgy.

Seems to me the argument using shellfish is selfish.

Katie is focused on the RCC for the same reason that fire and brimstone hillbilly preachers focus on the RCC: we’re the competition to beat.

Katie knows–somewhere deep in that tiny little P.C. hearts of hers–that she has no legitimate claim to the historic Christian priesthood much less the episcopacy. She knows that she’s playing at a being a priest and a bishop. It’s all just made-up and play-acting. Costume and stage props.

So, like these weird wandering bishops over here in Europe, who prowl around looking for a real bishop of the RCC to consecrate them, Katie constantly eyes the true Church, longing for a nod of approval, but knowing that it will never come, she lashes out in pitiful little fits of spite and bitterness.

Much like a bad drag queen who will not hear that he’s not really a woman, Katie can’t hear that she’s really not a priest or a bishop. Nor will she hear that she’s destroying a once beautiful expression of the Christian faith. Aquinas tells us that once you have chosen Evil and called it Good, your conscience becomes twisted, and you can no longer see the Good to choose it.

Not being able to see the Good is called folly. Foolishness. This is why Katie is always looking over her shoulder at the RCC…she knows she needs its wisdom, but folly blinds her to what the true Church has to teach her.

Fr. Philip, OP

Allen:
“At that point, the Roman Catholic (and the Orthodox) church will no longer recognize Episcopal baptisms as being Trinitarian.”
It’s already happening. I was Chrismated in the OCA seven years ago, and during discernment I took a copy of the 28 BCP into the Church office to show my priest that I was baptised with the correct Trinitarian formula so that the process could go forward.

“The St Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce.”

Chris,

I really do love your over-the-top snarkiness, and willingness to be creatively insulting and demonizing, when confronted with unrepentant hypocrisy by folks like Schori in positions of leadership in the TEC.

But I’m also pretty sympathetic to Miss Ippi’s having taken offense to your remark and surprised that once she raised her concern you leapt at the opportunity to promptly and colorfully heap condescension on her

I know it’s highly unlikely you really think the PB is a heretical whore, slut, tramp, strumpet, siren, harpy, SEED OF SATAN, etc. or that fart analogies are illuminating.

That was probably just fun stuff to share with your friends here on the site.

But to some of us visiting the Midwestern Conservative Journal for the first time to get access more perspectives on the squabble in the TEC, remarks like yours tend to be discounted as the self-satisfied ramblings of just one more spiritual partisan flailing about in a self-referential, parochial enclave rather than to be received as anything intended to be particularly constructive and worthy of consideration.

Oh well, different strokes for different folks, I guess…

Well, Fuinseoig, I, too, have my doubts about Sacha’s’s bone fides in this; she’s way too reminiscent of Sinner (God bless him) and his agent provocateur role in convincingly casting way too many of the conservatives and orthodox drawn to this site as merely raving, frothing at the mouth, misanthropes and loons by use of faulty logic and of intemperate language beyond the proper degree of rebuke. It seems Sacha may be effecting an outrageous act of sedition in and against an otherwise informative and constructive forum. Either that or it’s a wonderfully subtle form of spiritual guerilla theater…

Sacha,

And you really want anybody to read any more ?

“and lesbians can be extremely devious and dangerous people!!! [I've known a few such, sufficiently so as to absolutely wish NEVER to cross paths with such ever again...]”

And, therefore ?

How many lesbians are a “sufficient” to know you “absolutely wish NEVER to cross paths with such ever again”? Two ? Three ? Twenty-Seven ? Did St. Nicholas address the issue of how many lesbians ?

Edgar,

I agree with Miss Sippi that calling someone “whore” and “slut” was inappropriate and from now on, I’ll pull any such comments I see(I may not catch them all; remember, I’m a one-man operation). Let’s dial it down, okay, folks? We’re getting a little over-the-top here.

And while we’re at it, let’s also stop attributing to me things that I didn’t write.

Christopher,

For a one-man operation, you’re doing an absolutely awesome job of reporting and moderating (or at least trying to keep the rest of us somewhat on topic and civil).

Keep up the good work – thanks !

Leonard

Leonard, it’s enough that I’ve had to cross paths with about 9 male homosexuals and 3-4 lesbians in my life so far. They may seem to be nice people until you cross them over some pet thing of theirs – and THEN watch out for what happens!! Also, why risk more trouble by seeking yet more? Why ask for trouble??

[Carj Peter I (the Great) hated his capital city of Moscow so bitterly as to eventually divest her of her status as the Russian capital city at age 10 after the revolt of the Strjéljcï against him and his folks under his half-sister the Carjévna Sofíja - are you going to attack him for that??]

Life is short enough (yet still too long for those who end up even more wretched than some others!), cruel enough and evil enough…

As to your casting aspersions on my motives, it’s enough to ask God to rebuke you as only He Knows, infinitely better than such as you pretend to know!!!

For those who don’t see how the train of logic applies to the situation between my loathing sodomites and Peter the Great’s hating his capital city, a good reading of Massie’s biography – especially at the end of the chapter dealing with the Strjéljcï revolt should help… [Not for nothing indeed that it helped him decide to build his new capital city St. Petersburg!]

Oh Nooooo! There’s this guy who called the religious leaders a brood of vipers and whitewashed sepulchres! Help, help, such vulgarity!

I never heard anyone object to the language in Revelation referring to the Whore of Babylon – for years I heard this being explained as the Catholic Church (if you want to know what over the top is) – but everytime I hear the reference I can’t help but think of Schori. I think it’s a perfect fit, personally. Then again, it reminds me of Chane too sometimes.

C’mon, Christopher, the blogosphere is full of nicey-nice prissy little Christian blogs that cater to nicey-nice prissy little Christians and where Episcopalians (sniff) will never be offended. I love MJC because it isn’t one of them. Please don’t start now.

Leonard,

Sasha is overlooking much from you.

First, it’s Sasha, not Sacha. Second, Sasha is a man.

Third, he is NOT a Sinner-style provocateur, an opinion which I base upon private correspondence.

On a note unrelated to Sasha, I appreciate our host’s light rein regarding seamanlike language.

Leonard, we know Sasha and understand where he’s coming from, even when we don’t agree with him.

Christopher Hathaway wandering in, throwing insults around like snuff at a wake, and then claiming the moral high ground – well, it trips troll sensors.

If I’m wrong, I apologise to the man, but before he starts claiming to be a representative orthodox Episcopalian, maybe he should take a deep breath and count to ten. There’s enough real grounds to criticise Mrs. Jefferts Schori without descending to calling her names. I could don my feminist hat and say why use sexual slurs when criticising a woman, but that’s another kettle of fish

Fuinseoig and Ed, thank you so very much for posting on my behalf! It’s very much appreciated.

So, I’m still trying to understand what this site is aiming for.

The topic of this post seemed to be exposing, and commenting on, the “pretty embarrassing display of ignorance and hypocrisy” by the PB.

Fine.

That seemed like a useful exercise in spotlighting yet another element in the continuing threat to the integrity of the Church (or at least to that little fragment of it folks are fighting over).

But then an apparently regular and welcomed contributor to this blog, Sasha, ramped up his game from from making merely erratic and occasionally coherent statements to a gleeful, self-affirming declaration of his “loathing sodomites” (a sentiment perhaps not unusual among the Strjéljcï -obsessives).

Yet, none of the commentators here seemed to be troubled by his disclosure of the role of hate plays in shaping his faith journey.

Did anybody else think that, while we’re so greatly bemused/outraged by the ignorance and hypocrisy of the others we like to mock in a forum like this, it might also be constructive to reflect on whether our own zealousness, self-righteousness, and inevitably special brand of theological tribalism might be blinding us to our unintentional betrayal of basic Christian standards (hate-the-sin-not-the-sinner, WWJD, etc) that we’re implicitly sanctioning by not calling out mean-spirited ugliness for what it is when it’s dished out by someone on “our side” that we like and “understand” ?

Leonard, do you know who were the Strjéljcï (Streltsy in Massie’s transliteration)?

Also, there are certain people who, until they are ready to repent their sins, have to be avoided as the nature of their particular sins forces them to always be out to CONQUER others, demanding things their way or none! How can you not loathe that kind of sin and thus such people as the ones who’re forcing things down our throats (and that kind of loathing doesn’t automatically involve such hatred as to wish for their complete destruction à la Sodom & Gomorrah or even having them shot ‘en masse’ – that’s not what Christians are called upon to do)? Do you not feel disgust at the thought of “Gay-Pride” parades where that very sin and its derivatives are being extolled in the face not only of the Biblical prohibitions (both Old and New Testaments) but also the face of public decency? Why should we tolerate homosexuals flaunting things that wouldn’t be tolerated from heterosexuals (public intercourse, actual or simulated; picture-posters openly advocating hatred of the very things we count on to keep society at least somewhat better than it otherwise would be; other such placards advocating pædophilia {NAMBLA frequently is welcome in those parades!}; and so on)?

Sasha,

I couldn’t agree more with your point about the importance of avoiding those who might lead us into sin if we believe our faith would be insufficient to keep us from following their sinful lead.

And who hasn’t been appalled (and angered) by some of the desecration of religous objects and traditions in some of the gay-pride parades ?

But your position that we should go beyond that and to “loathe…such people” remains inconsistent with any mainstream variant of Christianity I’m familiar with.

I am only slightly comforted, however, by the fact that, notwithstanding your unrepentant commitment to loathe, and to urge others to loathe, the sodomites, you draw the line for the form of expression of that hatred at something short of “having them shot en masse”.

P.S. I know only just less than a speck about the rebellion of the Strjéljcï and some of the competing interpretations of its underlying motivation. I’d live to know more.

I know that he’s probably not your guy (he’s such a boring stickler for tradition and for staying on message), but Pope Benedict (who may have taken more arrows in his back than any other clergyman alive for consistently and clearly stating the traditional Christian view of homosexuality)has been pretty clear about how he feels about hateful speech directed towards homosexuals:

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs… The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in work, in action and in law.”

I don’t know…maybe Akinola, and perhaps some of the contributors to this blog, think the former Pope’s Rotweiler is actually a bit of a softee on his recommended treatment of those intrinsically-disordered gays ?

Leonard, careful about confusing loathing and hatred!

I’m not out to hate homosexuals, but one is commanded to regard their behaviour as an ABOMINATION!! Isn’t that therefore meaning that the behaviour is to be loathed – and that therefore they have to be distrusted and one doesn’t allow himself to end up in situations where they can take advantage of you?

Finally, if I genuinely HATED homosexuals and everything about them, what an absolute disgrace of a hypocrite and liar I’d indeed be to love the music of the wretched Pjótr Iljích Chaykóvskiy!!!

Furthermore, I DO care very much about the preaching and stance of Pope Benedict XVI: he’s one of my absolute heroes, although his recent esteem of human experience makes me a little uneasy – indeed I’d prefer him to be more of the Rottweiler than the German-Shepherd he’s so far manifested himself as being…

In any case, by loathing I don’t mean to even wish to see them made generally unwelcome in society (excepting when it’s a question of dealing with children and/or church-related work in any position of leadership). If you’ve otherwise any more questions, I await your reply…

She selfishly sells seashells by the Schori.
She selfishly sells seashells by the Schori.
She selfishly sells seashells by the Schori.

Sasha,

Thanks for the helpful clarification of your initial comments on your views on homosexuals.

It seems I clearly misunderstood the good will behind your comments and I apologize for that.

I guess you were using that term “loathe” simply to reflect your disgust for homosexuals and homosexual activity rather than any actual hatred of homosexuals.

Unfortunately, it was way to easy to fail to discern that you didn’t mean for your use of “loathe” to convey hatred, since in the dictionary “hate” is typically given as a primary definition for “loathe” and “hate” is also given as the primary synonym for “loathe”.

So, regrettably, when your repeated use of “loathe” was combined with your impassioned justification for meting out of some form of harsh punishment of homosexuals that you describe only as something short of “complete destruction” or being “shot en masse”, it probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to you that someone like me, unfamiliar with your Christocentric compassion for even flagrantly serial sinners like those disgusting homosexuals you loathe, might incorrectly think that you were understandably channeling some kind of Savanarola-like urge for exacting immediate retribution against gays, rather than simply letting them wait for their just and eternal reward at the final judgement (By the way, I’m not sure if you have any view as to whether those loathesome gays, or even that long list of loathesome apostates that thankfully you’ve been able to identify, may ultimately be beneficiaries of the King’s infinite compassion or not – what do you think ?).

It certaily is a bummer that one of the challenges of communicating in a forum like this is that we all (reasserters, deconstructionists, exclusivists,inclusivists, orthodox, liberals, religious wing-nuts, etc) are pretty much restricted to using only words to express the subleties of the theological formulations we seem to care so much about distinguishing,amplifying, and/or reconsidering.

So, while continuing to labor under that inevitable restraint, let me repeat how sorry I am about not understanding what you meant by the words you used.

P.S. Sorry to be slow to respond. My day job keeps getting in the way of more important activities.

Leonard,

Firstly, thank you for recognising that I’m at least not out to hate people in terms of who they are, much as I HAVE fallen into that sin far more than enough times over the years (and have tried to repent consequently)!!! At least it’s not just relative to people’s sexual, racial, and other such inclinations/phobiata (Gk. plural of “phobia”?) that have drawn my bitterest resentment by any means.

[In my severest test so far, a "minister" (heterosexual Spongian who has resented my not bowing the knee to him as well as asserting my faith at a concert I gave, which made him wince in his pew!!) AND an "organist" at the same "church" (homosexual who's extremely possessive of "his" instrument and can't accept that others play upon it regularly no matter what - or even be in "his" building!!!) combined (before quarrelling between themselves) to make me unwelcome at the best pipe-instrument in the whole area by far a little under 4 years ago (after my having privileges for close to 20 years), and I'll admit to having outrightly fallen lots of the time into HATING THEIR GUTS with all the rage, venom and foulest wishes for their destruction I'm capable of!!! It is however for the evil they did to me and manoeuvred me into doing against myself (taking advantage of my gullibility!!), at least not principally for who they are (aside from the "minister's" openly anti-Christian attitude). Either way, God Be Praised that I didn't even seriously attempt or consider attempting to harm them (instead I've shunned the whole town and in the end have given up organ-playing for some time - it's too painful for me...). After I've finished some score-editing for a pair of concerts I've been working upon over these past close to 9 years (which those two good-for-nothings BELITTLED ME OVER when I wanted to do them for that "church" as a fundraiser for that pipe-organ, triggering my expulsion to boot!!!), I'll probably get more seriously back into piano-playing - though hopefully that organ won't remain barred to me forever (if it's again made available to me, I'll gladly work to regain my skills on it - in the meantime, it's my conducting skills that are most upon my mind...). That "minister" is leaving in a little over a month, while the "organist" is looking to go elsewhere; particularly given his employer-congregation being in straits such that they could have to close within less than a decade... It's for what they've done to me that I've been praying God for their punishment while they're on earth!! {I can't pray, tempting as it is, that they go to Hell and the Lake of Fire on their deaths (though knowing that "minister" has cancer feels like he's been getting some of that punishment he deserves...), much as I believe their likelihood of so ending up is high - THAT would be both presumptuous AND anti-Christian, for we have to wish for people's repentance...} To boot, those two arch-bastards didn't only drive me out: beforehand they did as much to a locally-prestigious classical-music festival and after both them and me were eliminated, tried to do the same to a Montessori school but apparently failed...]

Ultimately it’s God Himself that will do the judging of every last one of us, you AND myself included!!! Believe me, we’re amply well warned in the Scriptures that that Last Judgement will be so terrible that even the elect will barely escape punishment – and if they are to have a hard time, what of the rest of us??? [Of course, far be it from me to deny Our Lord's Great Compassion; however, much as we can by ourselves NEVER manage to even approach winning His Favour by works, we have to do our best and aim to Glorify Him at all times.]

However, we’re no less strongly warned as to what the consequences of unrepented sins – for each and every last single one of us all – happen to be!! Thus, while any final judgement HAS to be left to Our Heavenly Father, we still 1) have the law to convict us (the moral law was NEVER abrogated by Jesus His Only-Begotten Son, contrary to what the “liberals” claim {and so turn “freedom” into absolute license as in Sodom and Gomorrah}!!), 2) have to face the prospect of passing through that Last Judgement (the only people who’ll apparently be secure are those raised up in the First Resurrection when Our Lord Comes back to start the Happy Millenium); 3) we can guess with SOME reasonable amount of accuracy what a person’s PROBABLE fate will be under such circumstances.

[Most unfortunately, even the mediæval ratio uttered in some circles as 1,000 damned to every one that is saved may be too generous, very sad to say... Likewise, it's not for nothing that some denominations (Orthodox, Romanist, traditional-Anglicans and Lutherans, probably others) STILL refuse to have funeral services of a full regular nature if the deceased has died unbaptised, excommunicate or of their own willful act while in a sound state of mind. {In fact, Catholics don't even allow the departed's remains to be buried in consecrated ground, and the same may well apply to the Easterners...} Much as any decent Christian believer and worthy Man wants to comfort the family and friends of the dead as much as possible, how can that specific comfort of a requiem-service be invoked relative to somebody for whom the odds don't seem that good? Here, I'll invoke Martin Luther's words on hearing that his rival/colleague-in-reform Ulrich Zwingli had been killed in a inter-cantonal battle in Switzerland: he said that it was God's Righteous Judgement upon a heathen and that "I wish from my heart that Zwingli could be saved, but I fear for the contrary, for Christ said that those who deny Him shall be damned." While NOT wishing to side with anybody against others generally (especially given that those particular events were so long ago and far removed from my ken), I can vouch - alas - for a few people I have known who didn't lead particularly good lives (including an aunt) and whom I likewise have to fear for even while not damning them with any finality (that's obviously beyond my scope)...]

Thus, to sum up: while SOME of those people I’ve identified as loathsome just MIGHT eventually be recipients of God’s Grace, I very much fear to the contrary to at least their ringleaders (VGR, Schori-Jefferts, Ingham, Chane, Bruno et al – who seem to be hardened criminals indeed!) and a whole lot more, sad to say…

Furthermore, while being warned “don’t judge lest ye be judged”, it’s not a warning not to judge, period – that would be utterly IMPOSSIBLE!!! We judge every single time we have to make a decision of any sort: be it regarding the use of time, money, the value of a relationship with somebody, etc. ad infinitum!!!!

Either way, I have to make sure not to allow myself when possible to even think about abhorrent events like “Gay-Pride” parades, invasions and desecrations of Christian places of worship, killing, dispossessing, hurting and raping Christians (e.g., India + all Islâmic states), etc. because I DON’T want to risk falling into that kind of sin (certainly I’ve felt that kind of extreme resentment for those that attacked a church in Michigan while dressed as Islâmic “jihadis” (!!!!) – for (to boot) I’ve likewise bitter sentiments against radical Muslims (and consequently distrust/loathe all Muslims…) who want to destroy everything about our civilisation and impose THEIR way of life upon the whole world!!! [My ancestral peoples suffered dreadfully over as much as 5 centuries or more at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, who were truly obeying the Qu'rân (which openly calls for such EVIL things!!!); and to boot both my grandparents and parents fought Communism and fled it (my maternal grandparents had to flee TWICE!!). Against such Satanic forces, how can you avoid risking such dreadful, even genocidal hatred??]

Thus, you can tell that it can be a very fine line sometimes between just feeling a repugnancy of disgust against a given group without wishing to hate absolutely everybody (e.g., homosexuals) – which for me is loathing – and risking giving way to open hatred against truly-Satanic forces (that’s then real hate!).

Please pray for me (and for the restoration of that instrument – the longer I remain separated, the harder it will be for me to be able to get back into shape, especially in terms of regaining proper practise habits! – also, having things to the state they were before such evils were done to me will make it much easier to “forgive and forget”…). Many thanks in advance!!

As to the power of words: as you see, you weren’t all that far off the mark – at least, I’ve tried to be honest and putting myself in my place… I no less apologise for my rambling and at times incoherency of thought.

[...] entry is fully written in it’s author’s blog. Read all about this here. This entry was posted on Friday, January 23rd, 2009 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can [...]

Sasha,

I am so grateful for your response.

Even though I obviously don’t know you, please indulge my temerity to say that I think I am only now, after all this bit of sparring with you, beginning to really get a glimpse of the brave soul that so many of the participants in this forum know and truly “understand” and, I think, for quite good reasons, cherish.

I finally recognize what are plainly the words of a man struggling to do what’s right, fighting passionately to deepen his faith and humility, exercising extreme diligence in obediance, and daring to be brutally self-reflective, even at the risk of suffering the inevitable pain of bold religious scrupulosity.

And, frankly, I can only step back in awe of your commitment and the pain you suffer in pursuing it.

[And as a only a guitar player in a regularly-gigging, but half-ass, bar band, but with a grandfather that was a professional organist and choir director for more than 50 years that spent 4+ hours a day at a church organ for almost every day of his adult life, I can only begin to imagine the legitimate agony that you must suffer from lack of access to what must surely be the single most powerful musical device for bringing so many, including you, into better alignment with the Logos - music, more than any creed, has certainly been my primary mechanism for approaching the divine and I know it must be so important to you in your spiritual quest.]

So, please excuse my prior contentiousness.

For my part,I have often misinterpreted my mission in life as primarily hyper-channelling Paul’s demands for church-interpreted orthopraxy rather than meeting the demand of the scriptures to follow, what seems to me to the more intuitively understood, example of Christ’s life and his primary commandments.

And, if past is prologue, I’m highly unlikely to change my ego-driven ways to continue to snoop around for for what I may think, rightly or wrongly, are snakes under rocks to expose and self-righteously stomp on (as an ex-SEC Enforcement Division guy and a two-decades-long credit derivatives structurer who has a pretty clear view of who did what to precipitate the current financial crisis,I’m spending most of my free time doing what I can to put a lot of Wall Streeters in jail, even a lot of our high-WASP brethren in the TEC presently ensconced in the tony suburbs of NYC – for me, I’m delighted that their particular form of apostasy is quite clear and, thankfully, subject to civil and criminal sanctions).

But you have given me pause, however briefly, to reflect on the tough and noble battles, personal and institutional, that guys like you are waging day in and day out, while some of the rest of us duck most of that.

So, keep doing what you’re doing…I really mean it !

your friend,
Leonard

Greetings Leonard!:

Thank you so very much for your latest E-post. Let me say in return that law-enforcement has my fullest respect, although there are a few instances where even fallible human laws can be open to question. Definitely some (probably not a few!) really-rich people of Wall Street and elsewhere have been known to come by their wealth via unsavoury means, and it’s such means that require condemnation (especially if it means that by such other people have been – and are – suffering unfairly, including destitution!!).

As to myself, knowing all too well my own sins (a couple of which do put one into earthly in addition to divine fear, no matter how innocent the motives be), your kind vindication of me is welcome but must be given back in glory to Our Heavenly Father – I don’t by rights deserve anything positive whatsoever!!

Most certainly, it’s no fun being made by one’s own personality and mental troubles related thereto such as to bring down opprobrium {sp.?} upon my head without really deliberately seeking it AND being conscious of the full causes thereof.

Regarding organs, I could wish to be content to play the smaller instruments others have generously offered me to use; however, some of the repertoire I care for really requires a certain critical mass not satisfied other than by the instrument I’ve been banished from (unless I were to go more than 100 km. one-way to get to rough equivalents thereof – not a good option given my current financial circumstances…). It also is important that I can learn to have my faith undaunted by such a punishment (even if Charles-Marie Widor could say “organ-playing is the sign of a soul filled with the vision of eternity”).

Thus, while being grateful for your kind words, please DO pray for me in general as well as for the restoration of the privileges relative to that particular organ as well as that it still can stay available to me if the place in which it’s located has to close due to impecuniousness (may another owner come forth to keep it in this area!). Many thanks in advance!!

Far more important however, given the evil times we’re all condemned to live in (and which are guaranteed to get a great deal worse yet!!), is that I can ALWAYS keep my faith and commitment to My Lord without compromise – that I not lose it under what truly could become utterly-intolerable pressures (if God not be there to help me and the others through them!) if things go to the worst. [This prayer request also applies to many, many others both known to this weblog and elsewhere – the Great Tribulation is on our doorstep (and for some in other parts of the world, is in full swing, alas!!…). As has already been seen with enough cases, there is – alas – no Rapture to spare us this until Jesus Returns. For these already suffering, we’ve ALL got to pray daily (and I know myself not to pray enough or meditate enough on God’s Holy Word…). Many thanks in advance!!