“If the Episcopal Church were to make adherence to the creeds or belief in the divinity of Jesus optional…”

Like, say, if they allowed a bishop to get away with writing stuff like “Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.”

Just hypothetically, would that count?

OMG! I hope no one reads this piece and gets ideas! If this plan is implemented, thousands, nay, millions, nay, BILLIONS of Roman Catholics will be flocking to the Anglican Communion. Why, ol’ Benny himself might make the jump, even if he has to return to being a “simple country bishop.” (Where have I heard that before? Hmmm.”) And, being Orthodox myself, I can just see Patriarch Kirill of Moscow leaping at the chance to have “spacious” (Mr. Johnson – is that a typo? Shouldn’t it say “specious?”) beliefs. And, of course, the monasteries on Mt. Athos will quickly follow. What a nefarious plan! On a more sane note – I love the description of converts to Catholicism as “dregs.” How very Christian. Feel the love!

This is off-topic, but I need to post it. Recently I received a private email wondering why, if I am Orthodox, I spend so much time posting on an “Anglican” blog. First, I consider this to be a “religous” and “social commentary” blog, not a per se “Anglican” blog. Second, the demise of the Episcopal Church is a cause of sadness for any Christian. As Christ said, and I’m winging it, two sparrows only cost a penny, but the Father knows whenever even one sparrow falls. The fall of any group of Christians is a cause for sadness on the part of all Christians. The least I can do is show solidarity with those Christians who remain faithful to Christ, and that would include the founder of this site and those who post on it, or most of them anyway. And now, back to our regularly scheduled programs.

I was surprised that these comments shocked me. They show how self-focused so many TEC people are. The “theology” of popular culture is rarely expressed this clearly. They truly sadden me. Their anger is surprising, too. Why should they care if the despised bigots leave the Episcopal “church”?

I never realized you guys were so miserable.

The Vatican approved mind-control chip helps with that. Of course, its primary function is to block dangerous independent thoughts, but the newer models very nicely suppress negative feelings that might lead to bolting for the closest Episcopal parish, where neither the Creeds nor the divinity of Christ will ever be denied.

I shouldn’t be ugly, though. The closest Episcopal Church is St. John’s, a lovely parish that was low church in my youth, but today is the only parish in town, Catholic or Anglican, with First Friday devotions (Mass and Rosary).

http://www.stjohnsfortworth.com/

Oh! Wait! This isn’t an Episcopal parish! Their Presiding Bishop is The Most Revd Gregory James Venables. That makes the closest Episcopal Parish (drum roll) Trinity Church, Katie Sherrod’s stomping grounds.

Never mind…

“Relevancy” = “political correctness” = “pluriformism” = “multiculturalism” = “inclusiveness” = “thought diversity” = ALL equalling (in all ways with all previous words also doing the same with following words!) = Fascism = Nazism = Communism = EVIL!!!!

Next time, yours truly might attempt a real diagram in terms of what would make it look even better!!!…

Christopher – I meant to say thanks for the laughs.

I also meant to include Trinity’s website:

http://www.fortworthtrinity.org/about%20us.htm

Some might be interested in their christology:

We are a church with lots of different members. We have young families, children, teens, seniors, and those in the middle. The one thing we have in common is that we are all trying to make sense out of life, and we believe that comes with an understanding of God. We believe the best window that we have into the mind of God is Jesus.

FW Ken: Re the St. John’s website – all I needed to see on their website was the “40 Days for Life” regarding the holy innocents to know all I need to know about this particular church. Glad there are such places.

How dare these people accuse the Catholic church of not being with it, reactionary and lacking in inclusiveness.!!!! We had a female Pope Joan hundreds and hundreds of years before Katherine Schori became Presiding Bishop. But then her holiness had to go and die on us giving birth during Mass!!! There went both the Church’s insistence on a male priesthood but also its celibacy requirements.

The idea of bringing hundreds of Church of England Anglo-catholic priests may not be such a great blessing. The Roman Catholic church which has lost credibility due to sexual immorality and abuse – most recently, the bishop in Latin America involved in a paternity suit, Irish priests and nuns who abused a multitude of children, to the Father Cutie affair. Here is the latest: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1148076.html

Lack of transparency and accountability in the church (in both the congregational and episcopate structures) provides a shield that invites, facilitates and protects abuses of power. In the hierarchical system, it is more difficult to detect and to correct wrongdoing in both clergy and lay agencies of the church. The clergy, agencies, laity can prey on vulnerable adults, teens and children, diverge from orthodoxy and use church resources to foment unbiblical (evil) deceptions and agendas. They can act with impunity because the people at the grass roots level who fund the church have very little power to remove them. In this spiritually and morally promiscuous culture, the righteous (those who maintain a posture of sincere repentance) are vastly outnumbered and there seems to be little if any righteous indignation at the grass roots level and if there were, there is little hope of finding justice in the church councils or the secular courts and legislature.

The RC hierarchical system is more opaque than the Episcopal Church and UMC combined and more of its members believe that the Church, its doctrines and its leadership are infallible, and should not be doubted, thus the RC is even more likely to produce an atmosphere where abuse can take place.

Those in the Church of England, who would take advantage of Pope Benedict’s offer are Anglo-catholics, which usually means they are ‘affirming’ catholics and that is a code word for pro-gay which means they are in agreement with and perhaps participate in the agenda/propaganda that is contrary to God’s Word, Commandments, order and design. Having swallowed one camel, British Anglo-catholics are only choking on another: women priests and bishops.

Thus, 600 Anglo-catholic priests and their followers flooding into the Roman Church is a nauseating prospect.

Contrary to Jay Random’s accusation, I am not bigoted against the RC and take absolutely no pleasure in pointing this out.

Sorry…meant to join the first two sentences to read:

“The idea of bringing hundreds of Church of England Anglo-catholic priests may not be such a great blessing to the Roman Catholic church…”

You are very kind, Chris, not to publish the names of the authors of these inanities. They should be embarrassed. That second comment, by the way, typifies the misunderstanding of genuine Anglo-Catholics, who are not like the faux “affirming Catholics” who love “smells and bells” but don’t love the Lord. The second group will stay Episcopal; the first will either depart for points South or for Rome.

Don Janousek, since we’ve been off-topic, and since you’re Orthodox, could you answer a question for me? Do the Orthodox reserve the Sacrament, either to remain in the church or to be carried to the sick? Please, all, I am not interested in starting a debate on whether Christians ought to do this, but rather to learn about Orthodox practice. Thanks.

The Vatican approved mind-control chip helps with that.

ROTFL!! Recently, at another venue, I encountered a comment claiming that Catholics “blindly” follow the pope, apparently consulting Papa about everything from theological conundra to what color to paint the guest room. Immediately the image that flashed into my mind was the scene from the old sci-fi classic Invaders from Mars, where the Martians are sticking little gizmos into the backs of people’s necks in order to control their every move. The movie critics claim that’s a veiled Cold War reference to the threat of Communist mind control, but now I realize it was really an allusion to the time-honored Vatican m.o.

Pay no attention to that little sore spot on the back of my neck….

Whitestone, pardon me, but one hallmark of bigotry is a refusal to get one’s facts straight. (Misrepresentations and distortions are so much more effective, after all).

Your little rant is so chock-full of factual errors that I don’t even know where to begin. I will leave it to other people — far more patient and knowledgeable than I — to deal with this nonsense.

Wonder what effect the churches that honest attempts to correct and remove errant clergy and laity will receive in the US, UK and Canada with the onset of ‘hate’ speech legislation.

diane in nc with a small d, I have cited only specific verifiable examples.

Whitestone, I’m afraid you are fundamentally wrong in your statement about C of E Anglo-Catholics, who fall into two distinct bodies: the so-called “Affirming Catholics” who are fully into the “inclusivity” thing with all that that implies, and the “Forward in Faith” people who are perfectly orthodox on both issues. (Sure, you can find some of the latter who are in irregular/immoral relationships, as you can in any body, but that doesn’t affect the corporate stance of Forward in Faith. Its house journal, New Directions, is quite clear on both matters.)

The AffCaths are most unlikely to be interested in Pope Benedict’s scheme. Your mention of “600″ Anglo-Catholic priests who might take up the offer is presumably a reference to the FiF National Assembly last week, which was attended by about that number (including myself). Michael Nazir-Ali – not exactly known for his pro-gay views – was one of the keynote speakers (though I regret to say that he’s unsound on WO). If you’d turned up and suggested that we were really pro-gay AffCaths, I think you’d have met with an interesting, not to say robust, reception!

Whitestone, you’re getting kinda trollish. You’ll only convert to Catholicism if we become what you demand of us…Protestants. Then the same sad list of excuses today. Why not just admit your bias and be done. I have a lot more respect for anti-Catholic bigots who at least admit it, than those who think they’re self-righteous indignation is getting them somewhere.

diane in nc with a small d, your accusation of bigotry is offensive and unfounded.

If I have committed factual errors, I welcome any and all correction that is accompanied by valid proof.

Whitestone, the above comments about Anglo-Catholics vs. “Affirming Catholics” are enough to refute at least some of what you say. In England and in America FiF people are not the San Francisco liberals who love vestments and liturgical niceties.

Also, twice on this blog people have cited the full Catechism about Islam, the part which bothers you so much, with explanations. In context it doesn’t say what you think it does, but you won’t accept the evidence.

Mark Windsor (diane in nc with a small d)

Name-calling and accusation are identifiers and tactics of those who are guided and governed by strong loyalties, prejudices and agendas rather than evidence and reason or by real love for Christ and agape love for neighbor.

For anyone to oppose or differ from their beliefs is so unbearably offensive that the temptation and usual response is to reject, shame, shun, punish, hurt or even kill the messenger rather than face the painful truth.

My heart and prayers go out to you.

Katherine, fr. francis,

Thank you for that clarification. I had read that the majority of Anglo-catholics in the UK were ‘affirming’ catholics and did not know that there was a separate group. The CoE is differently and more intricately divided than TEC and that is confusing.

However, I stand by the remainder of my remarks about the lack of accountability, transparency and church structure as contributing factors in the abuse of power and bringing harm, shame and loss of credibility to the Name and Church of Jesus Christ.

Whitestone,

You haven’t attacked “beliefs”, but made claims about Catholic life (parish and diocesan) which aren’t entirely true.

First, as I’ve posted many times, the rate of sexual offense among Catholic priests is no greater than among any population of men with access to kids. It may be lower (see Jenkins’ Pedophiles and Priests) Public schools, particularly, are hotbeds of child sexual abuse, teachers who offend are shuffled from school district to school district, and so on. The third essay on this page is a particularly good rebuttal of your comments:

…its leadership are infallible, and should not be doubted

That’s just silly. And ignorant about what “infallible” entails. You have no clue what church life is really like or how real Catholics behave.

I do agree we don’t need 600 “Affirming Catholics” coming in, as we have enough of those already. As noted by frfrancis and Katherine, those aren’t the ones who will come over (if any come at all).

Christopher, if you will, only the title of Jenkin’s book should be italicized. Not enough time or coffee yet. Thanks.

“If the Episcopal Church were to make adherence to the creeds or belief in the divinity of Jesus optional”

IF?

“The Episcopal Church should return the favor — offer a comparable deal to Catholics and Catholic priests who are interested in moving into the 21st century.”

What a silly thing to say. TEC has been offering a “better” deal since 1789- and upped the ante in 1979. If you are a disgruntled RC and come to TEC, you can receive Communion before you join the church, no catechism or doctrine required. As an ex-Catholic, you’re probability of becoming a bishop is 100 times that of someone baptised as a Piskie. And you don’t even need to be ex-Roman clergy. Just being ex-Roman is a guaranteed entry into seminary. Even with the Apostolic Constitution, the Romans will expect us to believe stuff, make affirmations, take on responsibilities in order to join the Church- no free ride like you see in TEC.

Affirming catholics are NOT Anglo Catholic. By definition. You cannot be an affirming catholic and hold to the Rule of St Vincent (“Vincentian canon”). Affirming catholics are those who like high church rites, but specifically reject the theology and ecclesiology that gave rise to those rites.

My heart and prayers go out to you.

And mind to you.

tjmcmahon,

Is the Vincentian Canon officially and specifically in the Anglican BCP, 39 Articles, etc? I’ve heard it cited by a Continuing Anglican Priest and several other Continuers.

For anyone to oppose or differ from their beliefs is so unbearably offensive that the temptation and usual response is to reject, shame, shun, punish, hurt or even kill the messenger rather than face the painful truth.

I take deep offense at this, Whitestone. That you would assume that I’m someone that would kill rather than face an unpleasant truth is hurtful beyond what I can say in public. Nothing I have ever said gives you the right to say something so bold. I’m Catholic. I lived through 2002 in a diocese savaged by The Scandal. We Catholics have our own painful truths, brother. While you accuse me of name-calling, you’re awfully quick to do so yourself.

You might also notice that a fairly broad spectrum of people are telling you that you’re wrong.

And by the way, we generally get called “small-minded” at about this point of the conversation. You forgot that one.

Simple fact is, Whitestone, that you’ll only be happy with the Catholic Church if we become what you demand…just one more Protestant mill. My heart and prayers really do go out to you, Whitestone.

“The Anglican Church has traditionally been inclusive regarding membership and participation in communion”

Which is why the Pilgrim Fathers decided to head out to America, hmmm?

Two words: Non-Conformists. Might want to read a bit of history before writing letters to the editor.

Woo-hoo! FW Ken, we are officially affirmed in our eviltude! And not just by any Tom, Dick or Harry, but by a Big Noise indeed! El Grando Supremo of Science, High Priest of Darwinism, Arbiter of Ultimate Truth, Professor Richard Dawkins himself!

Link courtesy of Mark Shea:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2009/10/give_us_your_misogynists_and_bigots.html

“Q: The Vatican is making it easier for Anglicans — priests, members and parishes — to convert to Catholicism. Some say this is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic and Anglican traditions; others see it as poaching that could further divide the Anglican Communion. What do you think?

“What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.”

*sniff* Pardon me while I wipe away a tear of pride. Recognition from the likes of Professor Dawkins is recognition indeed! Ah, all the donations to the parish appeal for funds to upgrade the dungeons and purchase the name-brand rack polish, the hours of spying on potential heretics, the deceit and treachery and manipulation, it’s all worth it to be praised so highly.

I actually had to read Dawkins in college about 11 years back (The Selfish Gene), and I remember that he was all panicking about how if we didn’t adopt birth control, we’d overfill the planet and the universe in a few centuries and all die of starvation. That’s probably part of what’s informing his anti-Catholic sentiments.

Wannabe Anglican posts today:

Pray for South Sudan

Please do pray for South Sudan. Dinkas and Christians there are the targets of what can only be called a campaign of genocide by Muslims. http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16045

Among the attacks chronicled at the link above is the massacre of an Anglican archbishop and of thirty defending him by covering him with their bodies.

Ah! If only Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler hadn’t been Catholic…

NOTE: Save the bandwidth: I know Hitler was baptized Catholic and Stalin Russian Orthodox. Both apostasized.

“Let us not impede the spiritual quest of those who desire to move and grow within the intellectual and self-righteous rigidity of Rome.”

Better rigid than spineless…

Oh, and for more information on traditional Anglican inclusiveness, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Martyrs_of_England_and_Wales

Hey, FW Ken – drop me an e-mail when you get a chance. I just want to send you a quick note. markwindsor3 [,at,) yahoo.com

Mark Windsor, Seems to me that Whitestone was not accusing you or anyone else of being murderous, but was only quoting the Anger Management tables that show how anger can escalate from frustration to fury to the point where people lose control.

Anger can start with a relatively minor incident, like another car cutting in front of someone, but if it triggers an existing wound or a person who is ‘under the influence’, it can end in bloodshed, either assault or killing. If anger is allowed to fester, it can lead to pre-planned murder with malice aforethought.

Religion is no exception.

One religious conflict I have read about created the whole range of emotions: anger, shame, guilt, rejection, jealousy, covetousness, and even murder. Even God in person tried to intervene, but couldn’t reason with the offended person and it ended in murder. See Genesis 4.

Jesus did not want his disciples using coercion to create converts or getting angry, calling names, accusing, cursing, cutting off ears, calling down fire on people when they did not convert.

Rather, they were to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom and it if was not received, take their blessings and peace, shake the dust and leave them alone for the Holy Spirit to work.

In the article above, the Muslims have failed to follow Christ’s example and teaching.

I will pray for you Whitestone as soon as I finish praying that God unlock the bitterness from my heart for your ill tempered words. It may take a while.

And I have to wonder do all those haters and self absorbed critics of the Pope’s offer go to communion with such words laid upon their souls? Cause if they do wasn’t there something in the Bible about bragging on how great and perfect you are while sneering at the fallen in your mist?

“The Episcopal Church should return the favor — offer a comparable deal to Catholics and Catholic priests who are interested in moving into the 21st century.”

I thought immediately of the remark of Edward I of England (d. 1307), when he heard that one of his Scottish ememies had been killed by another one of them, “Bon bosogne faict, qy de merde me livrer,” which I had better leave in the decent obscurity of Anglo-Norman French. But how I would rejoice if folks like Hans Kueng, Joan Chissiter, Bishop Gumbleton and the “Spirit of Vatican II” (Fr. Joseph O’Leary, SJ) would set off on the Canterbury Trail, and in so doing demonstrate the truth of the immortal lines which the late Bill Buckley uttered some 25-30 years ago on “Firing Line:”

“Is there anyone on earth, from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung, who can be entirely certain that he is not an Episcopalian?”

You know what, Floridian, I’d be happy to accept that if he’d say it himself.

I’m not really angry if that’s what you’re thinking, so your a bit off target there. I’m just really, really disappointed.

The Episcopal Church should return the favor — offer a comparable deal to Catholics and Catholic priests who are interested in moving into the 21st century.

Heck of an idea – then all those RC’s who can’t subscribe to RC teaching can have a place to go…or have to confess to their ecumenical confreres that they are actually “bigoted” because they do, deep down, recognize the RC as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and the Anglican as something less, otherwise, they would leave. How embarassing.

Religion is so close to the heart, and that’s probably why people do sometimes say things too strongly, forgetting the logs in their own eyes to look at the ones in others’.

Numerous times people drop in here to say something like, “Anglicans are just STUPID and their religion is STUPID and MY RELIGION is SO MUCH BETTER.” Maybe so, but it’s not a good way to convince people, since from either the Protestant or Catholic side this sounds like “Lord, I thank you that I am not like that man.”

Whitestone’s complaints above seem to focus on not liking the way the Catholic Church is organized and governed, thinking that these structures contribute to problems. Maybe so, but then Protestants from the Anglicans down to the local independent Bible churches have their problems too. ECUSA, for instance, was deliberately modeled on the early U.S. government, and just look at how much lay involvement has done for us. I think it was the late Fr. Neuhaus, in reference to the Scandal in the Catholic Church, who pointed out that it was caused by a lack of faithfulness on the part of both priests and bishops. The same is true of ECUSA — without the faith, the structure doesn’t really matter a lot.

I have been called a bigot by three people and various other negative descriptors by people who do not know me. Mark Windsor has also claimed to be able to read my mind. Mark’s (and other Roman Catholic’s) interest and concern for me always ends rather abruptly and coldly sometimes curtly when I do not agree with them or pursue conversion into the RC. This is not Christian behavior and is not the work or fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Please note that I began by saying that the problem was caused by lack of accountability and transparency and that the same problem exists in all churches, hierarchical and congregational.

Here is what I said about the Roman Catholic Church and why:

1. “The RC hierarchical system is more opaque than the Episcopal Church and UMC combined…”

In an Episcopal Church, the vestry can remove a priest and knows why and where he is going. In the UMC, the church pastor/parish relations committee can vote to remove a minister sooner and may vote to keep him/her longer than the usual four years. Does a Roman Catholic Bishop have to disclose to or consult with a congregation or anyone at the local level why, when and where he will move a particular priest?

2. “… more of its members believe that the Church, its doctrines and its leadership are infallible and should not be doubted…”
The reactions of loyal Catholics when any problem in the Church is mentioned is like going into the ‘hood’ and shouting, ‘Yo Mama!’ Only the reaction is more acute than doubting one’s own natural mother because for Roman Catholics, beliefs about the perfection of the Church are directly tied to the Virgin Mary.

3. “…thus the RC is even more likely to produce an atmosphere where abuse can take place.”
When #1 is added to #2, it creates an environment for abuse of power.

I am not criticizing the Church or Mary, or any particular leader, just listing factors that create an atmosphere where abuse can take place.

Continual accountability and transparency for clergy and laity in ministry plus good pre-screening of pastors should reduce abuse dramatically in any kind of church.

That does not take care of sexual, emotional and physical abuse in professing Christian families which is as prevalent as in non-church secular homes.

2. “… more of its members believe that the Church, its doctrines and its leadership are infallible and should not be doubted…”
The reactions of loyal Catholics when any problem in the Church is mentioned is like going into the ‘hood’ and shouting, ‘Yo Mama!’ Only the reaction is more acute than doubting one’s own natural mother because for Roman Catholics, beliefs about the perfection of the Church are directly tied to the Virgin Mary

Where do you get this??

First of all, teaching of the Church fall into different categories, from dogmas, to doctrines to disciplines, to Fr. Joe’s opinion. Not all require the same degree of dissent, not all have the same level of infallibility, and infallibility is limited to specific subject matters and to particular leaders. A quick google search would have shown you that. It is difficult to credit your sincerity when you make errors such as these, and the rather sanctimonious tone that comes across in your posts.

Should be “not all require the same degree of assent”, not dissent.

Whitestone -

Overall, again I must repeat: abuse is no more prevalent in the Catholic Church than any other organization and possibly less.

Now point by point:

1.) Again, procedures in the Episcopal Church haven’t prevented abuse. I cited the Bennison brothers, but there’s also that business in Central New York, and a priest I knew here in the mid-80s is now a registered sex offender and was working in a church ministry in the mid-west somewhere. On a percentage basis, it’s about the same across the board, church to church and in other social organizations as well. Again, I recommend you read the report I cited, unless, of course, you prefer your own opinions to facts. P.S. – in the Methodist Church the bishop use to control appointments, although I understand large, rich congregations always had clout on who they got and kept. I’m 30 years on that, however, so things might have changed.

2.) Again, you are misusing “infallible”, but I’m sure some loyal Catholics do object to any criticism of the Church. Overall, though, you really don’t know what you are talking about. Among real Catholics, the Terrible State of the Church Today is a favorite topic, which you could see by reading any number of Catholic blogs (Amy Welborn’s blog was good for this, but she’s out of business). In any case, real parish life is full of gossip, back-biting, and tale-bearing as much as any protestant congregation.

I’m impressed that you recognize the connection between the Blessed Mother and Church. It’s true; the connection is intimate.

3.) Since 1 and 2 were false, 3 is just as false. No need to comment.

I can’t fault your last three, very general paragraphs, except to ask why you thing child abuse is as common in church families as secular families. It might be true, and it’s certainly true that Christian families, like the Catholic Church, are more liable to media exploitation.

This is very much like your repeated claims that 10 Catholic colleges support abortion. There is truth to it, but not like you say it. Anyway, you will find plenty of “loyal Catholics” incensed about that. In fact, several hundred thousand signed a petition against Notre Dame last spring, and plenty of priests and laity drove Bernard Cardinal Law out of Boston.

I’ve said several times that the sex scandals are a blessing. Our house is getting a good cleaning. But that doesn’t excuse you for slander.

I am, always have been and always will be an Anglo-catholic rejoicing in the great inclusiveness and wonderful services of the Anglican Church. Yes, there are many points of view and many different church practices within the Anglican Communion but as long as we all can admit that there are many different views then there is no need for anyone to go across to the Catholic Church or go into fundamental Christianity.

I’m always amazed at the inanity of such statements, and have to wonder why those uttering them are unaware of how silly/dishonest they come across as. It’s like a burglar replying to the policeman who apprehends him, “I thought this was a free country”. “Freedom” has to be qualified. Likewise, “Many points of view” is only a good thing within limits (adiaphora). Even this numbskull believes that (would he think Anton LaVey a suitable candidate for ordination?). Making bare assertions like his is pointless unless he backs it up with why his notion of adiaphora is correct and ours is not. But of course they never want to get into the details. They want to sell you a bill of goods via propaganda techniques. Sometimes I wonder what percentage of TEC members are advertising executives.

I’m late to this thread but I thought my fellow benighted bigots could benefit from the wisdom of self-styled NY Times “ethicist”, Randy Cohen. In an article titled, “Can We Talk About Religion, Please?”, Mr. Cohen includes the following:
“And so it is disheartening that the editorial pages of our most important newspapers did not castigate the Vatican’s invitation to misogyny and homophobia.”

The full article is here: http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/can-we-talk-about-religion-please/

Cohen’s bio on the NY Times website includes this:
“His first television work was writing for “Late Night With David Letterman,” for which he won three Emmy Awards.”

And speaking of David Letterman, the AP is reporting:
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A former writer for David Letterman said she quit his NBC talk show in part because of alleged sexual favoritism and a hostile work environment.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for an admission by “Mr. Ethicist” that he was part of (and benefited from) “a hostile work environment”.

Mark W, the publicized cases of Episcopa;l sex abuse don’t even scratch the surface, I’ll warrant. When I was in college, a classmate who was looking into a monastic vocation visited an Anglican monastery in upstate New York. He hadn’t been there aa day before he’d been seduced by one of the monks. Did anyone hear about that, outside of his close circle of friends? I doubt it. I also rather doubt that it’s an isolated case. If you know what I mean.

The idea that a church which celebrates gay this, that, and the other has no clergy sex-abuse problem is ridiculous. How naive can people get? I wouldn’t leave my teenage sons alone with any clergy people — but especially not with an Episcopal priest.

Dial it down, folks. Were the Catholic sex abuse scandals a grave evil? Of course, no one denies that. Was the Church’s response to it inadequate? This Protestant can’t even begin to remember the number of Catholics he’s read who think that it was egregiously inadequate.

Are some Catholic colleges less stringent than they should be on the subject of abortion? Absolutely and once again, the number of Catholics who agree is too numerous to even begin to count. But no Catholic college or seminary has ever appointed a person this evil to head up one of its seminaries.

I leave you with the following:

[Love] does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth(1 Corinthians 13:6).

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted(Galatians 6:1).

Meaning what, Johnson? Meaning this. It seems like a good idea to avoid making rhetorical points on the basis of your brother’s inadequacies. Because you’ve got inadequacies enough of your own.

I’m afraid that Whitestone’s accusations of homicidal fury rolled off me like water off a duck’s back. They’re too much of a piece with his other exaggerations.

Joe Jackson, I don’t look to the NY Times for news, much less for “ethics.” When a columnist begins with “misogyny,” he’d better be talking about polygamist Mormons or Muslims, or I’m done reading.

Fairly put, Christopher -

“Egregiously inadequate”, indeed – heheh – I believe I used the term “apostate” of the American bench of (Catholic) bishops at the time they promulgated their “Dallas Charter”. But I was probably wrong and hot headed at the time.

Sort of…

Maybe…

Christopher, I hear ya. I would certainly not have brought up the case of my classmate and the Piskie monk if Whitestone had not been beating us papists over the head with the RC sex-abuse scandal. I know, that does not excuse fighting fire with fire, but one does get sooooo tired of the relentless double standard.

As you yourself noted (and thank you!), Catholics grouse about The Scandal more than anyone else. Personally, I get my Irish up ONLY when someone implies that “it’s just a Catholic problem.” It isn’t–far from it. Claiming otherwise just puts more kids in danger. If one assumes that other communions’ clergy — or public school teachers, for that matter — are so much more trustworthy than Catholic clergy, then one is, frankly, asking for trouble. I don’t, personally, know anyone who’s been abused by a Catholic priest, but I know countless people who have been abused by teachers, uncles, dads, grandfathers, and even (in one case) the pastor-head of a Methodist church orphanage. I know there have been TONS of cases of Catholic sex abuse. But I find it telling that I know of so many people (including close friends and even my own mother) whose abusers had no connection whatsoever with the Catholic Church. Sorry to get off-topic, but, as I say, this Whitestonian assumption that it’s exclusively a Catholic Thing is dangerously naive. It’s not a matter of gloating or tu-quoque-ing. Rather, as a mother of teens, I’m simply pointing out that dangers to our kids lurk everywhere. If people think their kids are safe as long as they stay away from Catholic rectories, they’re kidding themselves.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Diane the Paranoid, wondering why the smackdown came right after her post, LOL

Katherine: I agree with you. But the point of Christopher’s post was to tell us what the other side was saying. I was just holding up my end of the log.

Joe

To be fair to Whitestone, he hasn’t said that the problem is exclusively Catholic. He has said that the problem is particularly exacerbated by our not having a Protestant style of governance, but that’s not the same thing.

The wonderful “protestant style of goverance” in the Episcopal Church produced a denomination, tiny though it is, which discarded 2,000 years of Christian doctrine, consecrated a sodomite as a bishop in New Hampshire, has ceremonies for blessing acts which are called an abomination in Holy Scripture, violates the principles of Christian caritas by suing other Christians and has a seminary led by a militant lesbian who thinks killing unborn children is a blessing. Humpf! Some style. Some goverance.

As Doonesbury said, there are still a few bugs in the system.

Dear Whitestone,
I am Italian – and you will forgive my sloppy English. I’m not going to indict you, only I want to offer some unordered considerations about what you wrote.

In Italy – a Catholic country if there’s one – we currently have around 35.000 priest, in the past there were many more: I’m not aware of any massive scandal involving them. Neither from my own experience, nor from the recollections of the many old persons I know, I’ve got the impression of any widespread sexually intrusive behaviour on the priests’ behalf.
Virtually any Italian has spent some time – indeed much time – in a Catholic environment: countless afternoons on the parish playground, schools, holidays, the Church is always present on the public square. My parents, like millions of other Italians, spent their boyhood in a religious boarding school (“collegio”) during WWII; later they lost their faith and became communist – around year 1968 – and fiercily antichristian in attitude, but they never complained about the Catholic school they attended and especially not about the priests and nuns they learned from. The Italian Communist party (PCI) has been the biggest in Europe during the past decades, and I assure you they didn’t spare any charge toward the Church: but nothing about hidden sexual misbehavior. You can be sure that the avarage leftist in Italy leaves his children in the parish when he goes to work.

Compare that with so many memories about the English school system of the past century – George Orwell’s ones come to my mind: wasn’t there sodomy widespread? But, who care? they’ve no priest celibacy.

In the world the Catholic priest are more or less 430.000, the bishops 4.500: do you think it’s fair to pick a Bishop in America, the scandal in Irland and Cutie’s case (happily migrated to ECUSA) and draw a general picture of Catholicism?

Of course, there have been and there are abuse, most commonly a priest’s affair with a woman. I agree that the respect popularly offered to the priests may compel the victim (certainly not his parents or the parish, if they are aware of the facts) to hide the crime, but this has nothing to do with the hierarchy per se: to the contrary, it should help to correct the situation, since there’s a clear teaching and a superior instance to whom you can appeal. Of course, things can go astray, if who’s responsible deems reputation more important than justice before God: but this can happen in a hierarchical system as well in a vestry. By the way, even in Catholic parish there’s a vestry which can appeal to the Bishop and to everyone: I don’t know where you got your idea of an untouchable hierarchy hectoring the faithful.

Furthermore, if the proposed personal prelature allows that Anglicans preserve their orthodox practice, I cannot see what prevents a vestry supervising the parish and publicly appealing to the bishop in order to remove an unworthy priest.

Hope I’ve not given you or any Anglican offence in anything I said, in any case Peace to you, pray for my soul.

Paolo

I’m just sitting here and basking in the Benedictine revolution. It is such fun to see these people absolutely loose it over this.

You are right: How we have longed to see real Christian leadership. We have been begging for it. We’re starving for it. And now we finally see how it is done.

Glory to God for answered prayers.

Thanks to the Holy Father for welcoming the refugees.

Now, let’s get on board and get on with our lives and working in the Lord’s vineyard. Finally, after all these years, we have a clear answer and direction for us and our descendants.

Well said, Paolo.

Whitestone,

“The reactions of loyal Catholics when any problem in the Church is mentioned is like going into the ‘hood’ and shouting, ‘Yo Mama!’ Only the reaction is more acute than doubting one’s own natural mother because for Roman Catholics, beliefs about the perfection of the Church are directly tied to the Virgin Mary.”

Please see the lengthy discussion between myself, FW Ken, William Tighe, James G, Mark Windsor, et al:

http://themcj.com/?p=7485

I raised a number of issues about Catholic doctrine, and was met with respectful and intellectually challenging replies. There was no compromise on doctrine, but neither was there any indication of ranting, wlid statements, etc. Here on MCJ, that has been true all along – our RC brothers and sisters may not agree with us, but they will offer thoughtful dialogue – IF they are treated with equal respect.

Are there *some* people in the RC church who “go wild” about questioning their beliefs? Certainly, just as there are *some* in TEC, as frequently made evident by reading the ‘Lil Slice of Goofy. So what? They (that “*some*”) aren’t the ones posting here.

Chris:

Stephen Colbert, continuing his Papa Benny meme, had Rev. Randall Balmer chat about this news.

Excellent discussion of Benedict XVI’s invitation here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/24845/

You’ve got it, Chris. Scratch a granola Episcopalian and see an old country-club Episcopalian, a snob who’s proud of how enlightened he thinks he is. Same script (faith wiped out by the ‘Enlightenment’), different costume.

A.N. Wilson, not a fan of the Pope but he gets Anglicanism:

Hatched by Henry VIII and nurtured by his daughter Elizabeth I, the Church of England was an expression of that combination of tolerance and arrogance that marked the English governing class. It sat light to doctrine, and tried to accommodate many. But while that seemed a gentle thing to do, it did so because it actually laid claim to governing and controlling all.

The Pope merely claims to defend traditional faith and morals using the powers claimed by his office. These people not only think they’re better than you; they want to own you.

Dear Whitestone,

according to our literary father Dante Alighieri – certainly a serious Catholic – the following popes should be spending their eternal lives in hell (Italian names):

- among the slothfuls: Celestino V
- among the heretics(!): Anastasio II
- among the simoniacs: Niccolò III,
Bonifacio VIII,
Clemente V

As you can see, there’s a Catholic tradition of in-house criticism, radical enough I’d say; nothing about sex, anyway – the Borgias still weren’t in office

This is just to downplay a little the discussion, which nevertheless can be a healthy thing now and then, given the fact that – as Bill (not IB) says above – on this blog generally those who step in are real Christians.

I didn’t think Hans Kung was still alive! He too has an opinion, even if it’s only in La Repubblica (no direct link to an English version):

http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=7087

Joe Jackson, it was a good link, and I didn’t assume that you agreed with the “ethicist.”

The RCC can reach into its sofa cushions and find more peeps than attend Episcopal churches.

Hilarious!

“They are unhappy because they are wed to an interpretation of a seven verses (out of more than 31,000) in the Bible which align with their bigotry.”

The Ten Commandments are only 28 verses out of “more than 31,000,” appearing once in Exodus and once in Deuteronomy. Does that mean they are a minor matter and can be ignored?

More from Fr. Kung -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/27/catholicism-pope-anglicanism-church

Don’t Hans Kung and The Guardian make just an irresistible pair! A match made in … somewhere.

“There are no seriously arguable reasons why anyone should leave this church” [EcUSA]

ROTFLMAO!

FW Ken: “I’ve said several times that the sex scandals are a blessing.”

Has anyone read this recent news story titled “A Mother, a Sick Son and His Father, the Priest”?

I do hope and pray that the terminally ill son is blessed to go to Heaven.

Vell, at least little Hans reveals the real reason for his expressed displeasure – “too much Kung”! – und, for once, he is right! As were his discipliners.

So, anyone got any opinions on who the next victims to be lured into the papal dragnet will be?

The Southern Baptists? The Mormons? The Taoists? Who can we entice to fill up our thinning ranks and prop up our homophobic misogynist anti-scientific world domination power grabbing? I see the Scientologists are having some reverses in France – this is the perfect opportunity to make them an offer they can’t refuse!

It’s hard work maintaining that “Officially Certified by A Big-Name Scientist ‘Most Evillest Ever’” status, you know!

Yet another rerun of “Kung Poo.”

I have commented on this blog and all the other Anglican/Episcopal blogs since 2003, but I have never been called names or accused of so many things by any other group except by the Catholics on the last couple of threads. The tenor of your comments would do Fr. Jake and the HoBD proud.

If you had read what I actually did say and not what you thought I said, you might have saved yourselves a liter or two of spit and vinegar.

“Hatched by Henry VIII and nurtured by his daughter Elizabeth I, the Church of England was an expression of that combination of tolerance and arrogance that marked the English governing class. It sat light to doctrine, and tried to accommodate many. But while that seemed a gentle thing to do, it did so because it actually laid claim to governing and controlling all.”

It is amusing to me that people criticize Anglicanism for being a creature of Henry VIII and his daughter Liz when the Orthodox and Roman Church both received multiple renovations and stylings by the Emperor Constantine.

Pot meet Kettles

Theodore,

That’s an interesting point and clearly have some merit. The history of the Catholic Church is full of state and church conflict. Emperors and pope’s have vied for control at various times, and sometimes the emperor held effective sway. However, to my knowledge, Constantine never claimed to be the Head of the Church.

Btw, which I deplore what the Tudors did politically and theologically, it’s understandable that Henry wanted the stability of a male succession. Surely he grew up on tales of the dynastic struggles that led to his father’s ascending the throne.

It’s arguable the realm would have been more politically stable under his legitimate daughter Mary than his sickly son, followed by Mary, then by Elizabeth. But all of that is hindsight, isn’t it.

Constantine didn’t have to declare himself head, but he evidently had the power to freely change and reorganize Christianity to his own liking. I’d say he had a greater power and effect than Henry VIII or Elizabeth I put together.

The Church is always wounded when she bows to earthly powers, but the wound is deeper and more serious when her children do not bow to one another.

“Constantine didn’t have to declare himself head, but he evidently had the power to freely change and reorganize Christianity to his own liking.”

Except that he did no such thing, but this old canard, used by Unitarians (of the old school) and Landmarkian fundamentalists alke, is too good and convenient to drop.

Theodore -

Can you give examples? All I can think of is that he promoted Constantinople to prominence and, I suppose, might have liked to transfer Primacy there. However, he didn’t actually succeed. Beyond that, he changed the nature of church/state relationship, but he didn’t abrogate the Petrine Primacy, which is the issue with Henry; did he change the doctrines and theology, such as did Elizabeth? If so, how?

He did those things, Ken, but more generally he intefered in Church affairs by occasionally transferring bishops from see to see (his son Constantius did a lot more of that), and he lent his authority and that of the State to the Western bishops in an attempt to settle the Donatist Schism in North Africa (the attempt only made it worse, but he left to the bishops, presided over by the Pope, to determine who was in the right and who in the wrong there) and he called the Council of Nicaea to determine the question of the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of Arius’ teaching (this, too, he left to the determination of the assembled bishops, and subsequently used State authority to enforce their determinations and to remove and exile Arius and his supporters).

When his attempt to settle the Donatist question falled, Constantine simply lost interest, and left the North African Christians to fend for themselves. In the aftermath of Nicaea, however, he came to feel that he could broker a solution, and under the influence of Arian court-prelates, his “solution” was for the anti-Arians to abandon the Nicene Creed and for both sides to agree on a vaguely-worded “new creed” that would have eviscerated Nicaea. When Athanasius resisted such proposals might and main, he allowed legal action to be taken against him, exiled him, and lent his support to a “trimming” replacement. All of this was deplorable enough, no doubt, but it neither equates to the authority that Henry VIII arrogated to himself in England in the 1530s, nor amounts to “freely changing and reorganizing Christianity to his own liking.” Constantine’s proposed “solution,” and those of his son, were rejected after over 60 years of strife, whereas Henry’s usurped authority over the Church remains to this day a bedrock feature of the Church of England.

From what I’ve read, Constantine came to Nicea dressed to impress, claimed to be a bishop of the world, then dominated and directed the proceedings. In addition, he and his mother were instrumental in revising several sites and dates of Christ’s life, injecting superstition and legend, thus considerably changing the focus of Christianity and of Christian tradition. Dare I say (considering Whitestone’s recent stoning) that these elements are still evident in the elder liturgical churches today.

Obviously, Floridian, you’ve been reading Jack Chick style tracts, rather than anything recognizable as “history.”

Floridian,

You (and Theodore) have made claims about history that are true or false. I have made a response that is also true or false. Now you might get in trouble with Anglicans messing with Nicea (the “undivided church” and all that), but you might be right. Theodore’s point was that Constantine is to the Catholic Church as Henry/Elization are to Anglicanism. That’s fundamentlly different than playing the sex scandal card.

Whitestone made blatantly false claims about the Catholic Church, not for the first time. Usually when he get called on his nonsense, he just disappears for awhile. In this case, he reiterated his claims, and is now playing the victim, includng intimations of murderous rage against him. These are, of course, rhetorical devices dear to a certain simple country bishop of the Episcopal Church.

In answer to your point about Constantine’s mother, Helen, all I ever read about was that she went to Jerusalem, consulted with the Christians there, and identified some sites, including the spot where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands today. Last I heard, archeologists think that probably really is the site of the Ressurection and Crucifixion. It’s the 19th century “Garden Tomb” (on which lore I was raised) that can more properly termed “superstition”, though I wouldn’t have brought in such a strong term on my own. It’s more a matter of sentimental attachement.

Anyway, that’s how I got it from my Church History clasees in a Methodist College and the Anglican School of Theology in Dallas. I do acknowledge it’s been 20+ years since the latter and close to 40 for the former, so I could be wrong.

Whitestone’s remarks were reasonable compared with many of the responses.

FW Ken, you’ve been taking writing lessons from either Ruth Gledhill or the National Enquirer. Your adjectives are so hot they are about to spontaneously combust.

[...] insane by the most innocuous action, then Pope Benedict XVI is a genius”; and “The first Episcopal pew reaction to the Vatican’s Anglican provision has appeared in Lil Slice O’ Goofy. You already know what’s here so I’ll just hit a few high [...]