Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 | Uncategorized | 70 Comments
Pope Benedict XVI is still on a roll and still effortlessly causing Episcopalians to make absolute jackasses of themselves. Arizona Episcopal Bishop Kirk Smith weighs in on the Vatican’s Anglican initiative:
This current invitation is a bit different in that those going to Rome have been promised that they can maintain their Anglican ways (Prayerbook, etc) and even have oversight by former Anglican bishops. Still those priests and bishops will be ruled by the Vatican.
For them, that’s a feature, not a bug. What’s your point?
The reason dissenting Episcopalians left our church is that they didn’t like control.
Wrong. They left because they’re still Christians and the current leadership of the Episcopal Organization isn’t.
I doubt many of them would be anxious to trade in their current relative independence for orders from the Chair of St Peter.
Hang on a second. Didn’t you just now say that conservatives left because they didn’t like control? Now you say they’ll be trading in their “relative independence” to take “orders from the Chair of St. Peter.” Which is it, Smitty?
It might be a different story in England where there is a much more pronounced Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England, yet even so, there is wide disagreement among Anglo-Catholics over such issues as the ordination of women, use of the Roman missal instead of the Prayerbook, and the role of gay and lesbian people in the church. As has been pointed out, the Roman Church’s position on sexuality is hardly consistent. It does not permit married clergy (except for Anglican converts?) and it does not permit gay clergy (even though until recently pedophilia was secretly tolerated?) There seems to be something missing here.
ANNNNNNNNNND here we go. Dumbass, er, Bishop? Was the Roman Catholic Church’s response to its sex scandal woefully inadequate? Every single Roman Catholic in the United States will angrily tell you that it was WAY worse than that.
So to say that the Roman Catholic Church tolerated pedophilia is a stretch. Actually, it’s a libel since like any Christian church, Rome doesn’t tolerate any sin, it just sometimes doesn’t react as well as it should to instances of sin occurring among its members.
Is annulment a scandal now and then? Probably. But it kicks the crap out of being as breezy about marriage as Episcopalians are. After all, the Catholic Church didn’t make a bishop out of Barry Beisner, a man who’s been divorced twice and married three times.
What with you guys giving a pointy hat to a man who has sex with a man as well as to old Third Time’s the Charm aforesaid, Episcopalians are the last people in the world who should lecture any other Christians about sex or sin or anything else.
But as far as libel is concerned, Smith’s just getting warmed up.
What I think is missing is any clear Gospel proclamation on the part of the Pope. Of course he wants to increase the rapidly dwindling ranks of his own church, what leader would not want to do that?
You know how I like beating jokes to death so here goes. The “rapidly dwindling ranks” of the Pope’s own church currently number a billion and change. The Episcopalians claim about 2 million. Maybe. Fact is, Smitty, that the RCC can reach into its sofa cushions and find more peeps than attend Episcopal churches.
But is the building up of a church on the basis of hatred consistent with Jesus’ message? Is the idea “If you hate gay people and women, then come join us” one Benedict really wants to support?
No, since he never said it and doesn’t think it. How the hell do you know what the Pope’s motivations are, tough stuff? Those false witness classes sound like they’ve really paying off for you. Bishop, Richard Dawkins thinks that one was over-the-line.
Or is this gesture likely to become, as I suspect, a tremendous embarrassment to present and future generations of Roman Catholics?
Dude, just work in the one about the Pope being the false prophet of Revelation and call it a day.
Jesus Christ’s message about love and acceptance of all seems to have been somehow overlooked by the Holy Father.
Your pseudo-spiritual debating society, on the other hand, has pretty much deep-sixed the Cross and eliminated the whole idea of sin. So once again, glass houses and all that.
Face it, Smitty, you and the Pope have two different religions. And on the basis of this arrogant, stupid, mean-spirited, libelous screed, I want nothing whatsoever to do with yours. I want no part of any religion where you can lie and defame this effortlessly.