March 22, 2017

March 18, 2010


Archbishop Jensen Statement on Glasspool Confirmation

From sydneyanglicans.net

With the election of the Reverend Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, as a Bishop in Los Angeles in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion reaches another decisive moment. It is now absolutely clear to all that the national Church itself has formally committed itself to a pattern of life which is contrary to Scripture. The election of Bishop Robinson in 2003 was not an aberration to be corrected in due course. It was a true indication of the heart of the Church and the direction of its affairs.

There have been various responses to the actions of TEC over the years. Some have been dramatic and decisive, such as the creation of the Anglican Church of North America, an ecclesiastical body recognized by the GAFCON Primates as genuinely Anglican. For others, however, the counsels of patience have prevailed and they have sought a change of heart and waited patiently for it to occur. Those who have sought a middle course may be found both inside and outside the American Church.

This is a decisive moment for this ‘middle’ group. Their patience has been gentle and praiseworthy. But to wait longer would not be patience – it would be obstinacy or even an unworthy anxiety. Two things need to be made clear. First, that they are unambiguously opposed to a development which sanctifies sin and which is an abrogation of the word of the living God. Second, that they will take sufficient action to distance themselves from those who have chosen to walk in the path of disobedience.

Peter F. Jensen,
Archbishop of Sydney

 


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

80 comments

Yes, Yes and again Yes!  I hope that the CP/Windsor bishops read this and take it to heart as they head off to the HoB Meeting.

This is statement is not a word of encouragement to action, it is a godly admonition against inaction.  Pray that many more follow in the days ahead.

[1] Posted by frreed on 3-18-2010 at 06:18 AM · [top]

It is now absolutely clear to all that the national Church itself has formally committed itself to a pattern of life which is contrary to Scripture.

For Canterbury to be silent, nonchalant, vague, false, or obfuscatory is NOT an option.  If he is any, some, or all of these, then the western/revisionist arm of the AC is DEAD.AS.DEAD.CAN.BE.

In the meantime, we all need to remain vigorously and

unambiguously opposed to a development which sanctifies sin and which is an abrogation of the word of the living God.

Thank you, Archbishop Jensen!!!

[2] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 3-18-2010 at 06:52 AM · [top]

This statement, like all the other bellicose statements which will be made in the days to come, will change nothing!

[3] Posted by RMBruton on 3-18-2010 at 07:39 AM · [top]

It time to be clear the Windsor Report was subverted when it was reinterpreted as the Windsor Process.  It is dead.  Likewise, the Covenant will no longer serve the matter because the EC will reinterpret and sign it and deny they have violated the meaning/spirit of the Covenant.

The idea that there are Windsor Bishops, Windsor Dioceses, and the Communion Partners is a joke.  It is more a public relations ploy to keep as many people in the EC so that the dioceses and parishes do not financially collapse.  It is a stop gap that is not holding.

Bishops and rectors will do and say anything they can to keep their diocese and parish together and they will get rid of any bishop or priest who proclaims the reality of what is happening.

[4] Posted by Creighton+ on 3-18-2010 at 07:50 AM · [top]

The Bishop of a diocese that prohibits its clergy from wearing chasubles has no credibility with me whatsover on ANY subject.

[5] Posted by DesertDavid on 3-18-2010 at 07:56 AM · [top]

[5] DesertDavid

Assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is true ... don’t you see that there is a difference between an external (as in what you wear) and an internal (as in what you do).  Things outside the body do not corrupt.  Evil instead comes from within the heart of man.  Worship is defined by spirit and truth.  Better the man who worships in ragged blue jeans and tennis shoes than the one who profanes in full regalia.

carl

[6] Posted by carl on 3-18-2010 at 08:10 AM · [top]

#3 RM Bruton

This statement, like all the other bellicose statements which will be made in the days to come, will change nothing!

I am not so sure.  This provocative act, and be in no doubt it was intended to be provocative, will have been noted by the ABC and the Communion.  We may in the coming days see further statements, although I would not hold my breath on one from the ABC at whom this was particularly targetted.  It was targetted to undermine him and his Covenant process and to show him to be a paper tiger, to use an old term.  Much of the Communion, in particular the Global South have already said what they have to say about TEC, and remain out of communion with it.  They have no need to react to each new act by TEC.

However this act from a church which is collapsing morally, financially and numerically, is likely to accelerate that collapse, and its isolation.  It is the act of a wounded animal, desperately defending its corner and fighting for its life, as are the removals of priests in Quincy yesterday.  Expect things to get worse as things get more desperate.  But ultimately the pathetic actions of this tiny group have little impact either in the US or the Communion.  It spits and lashes out, but it does so from a position of weakness.

History and theory tells us there will come a tipping point, both for TEC and its relations in the Communion, although none of us can tell when that will happen.  I suspect it won’t be long, but I really have no crystal ball.  In the meantime we may or may not see statements by others, but when you see the long term movements rather than relying on the immediate, what is going on and will result is pretty clear, sadly.

I am sorry for what was a fine church and formerly a Christian beacon not so long ago, but the stoats and weazels are in charge, and they are blowing up Toad Hall.

Time for the Communion and Christians to move on before more damage is done.

[7] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 3-18-2010 at 08:11 AM · [top]

Pageantmaster,
Crises like this in the Anglican Communion are as tedious as watching plays like Waiting For Godot endlessly. Desert David has, perhaps, hit the nail on the head; what is needed are more chasubles. That will solve all the problems, I’m sure.

[8] Posted by RMBruton on 3-18-2010 at 08:23 AM · [top]

I know a lot of people in this middle group. They must be brave and not vacillate in this hour of trial and testing.

[9] Posted by AhKong2 on 3-18-2010 at 08:47 AM · [top]

#7, any post that references ‘Wind in the Willows’ gets a +10 in my approval.

Chasubles are adiaphora at best. And I am very much not a protestant. What is important is the Gospel. Tell me where Achbp. Jensen has the Gospel wrong and where Bp. Bruno has it right.

[10] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 3-18-2010 at 09:03 AM · [top]

AMEN, Carl #6
I agree with your complete post and it speaks to the Biblical definition of what defiles a man/woman. You said:

...there is a difference between an external (as in what you wear) and an internal (as in what you do).

I would make it a bit more emphatic “...there is a difference between an external (as in what you wear) and an internal (as in what you think/do/say as that is the substance of WHO YOU ARE - the REAL YOU INSIDE).”

I won’t bother to cite the many Bible verses that come to mind. Most here at SF likely know them by heart anyway!

YSIC, Merlena

[11] Posted by merlenacushing on 3-18-2010 at 09:14 AM · [top]

RMBurton,
You got it! Statements are just that ...a statement. The make no changes, they sway nothing, and there is no discipline in them. Words can hurt or lift up but in the end they are just words….Actions speak far louder.

[12] Posted by TLDillon on 3-18-2010 at 09:37 AM · [top]

You can count on Williams assembling yet another gaggle of otherwise-unemployable drones into yet another useless panel to study the Glasspool election, producing yet another interminable report that will yet again be used as a footwipe by 815.

You’re being played for fools.  Is that not clear by now?

[13] Posted by Jeffersonian on 3-18-2010 at 10:50 AM · [top]

I guess if Jensen said nothing, we would criticize his silence.  But I am more interested in what actions will come.

[14] Posted by Michael D on 3-18-2010 at 11:19 AM · [top]

I am afraid that the Communion Partner bishops have now become the Collaborative Partners bishops…
Intercessor

[15] Posted by Intercessor on 3-18-2010 at 11:23 AM · [top]

ISTM the chasubles was made tongue-in-cheek to prove a valid point - DesertDavid’s Anglo-Catholic real or posed leanings aside, TEO’s casting-off of symbols of being under some, any, spiritual authority only revealed and presaged its actual rejection and casting-off in actions and de-facto doctrine of that same authority.

[16] Posted by Milton on 3-18-2010 at 12:38 PM · [top]

I’m going to post here because the phrase “sanctifies sin and ... is an abrogation of the word of the living God” does such an excellent job summing up the prosecution’s side.

I think this is all really very simple.

In 2003, we had the acid test of TEC. TEC failed and in failing lost all authority as a Church—and even as a Christian organization.

In 2010, we have the acid test of the Anglican Communion. Canterbury, spineless and vacillating thus far, will have to take decisive action or Anglicanism will follow TEC down the rabbit hole.

As our former rector, now residing in Texas, once said, perhaps this is God’s judgment on Protestantism.

The craven identity-issue politics and self-serving expediency of the past decade in the church was much in my mind this week while reading Hilaire Belloc’s “Characters of the Reformation.” Belloc was an unabashed partisan of the Roman Catholic Church. Have a look if you want a whole new perspective on Canterbury’s role defending the faith since about the mid-16th century. Seen from a Roman perspective, Anglicanism has been about caving in to worldly authority from the get go.

It seems TEC has brought the Communion to the proverbial fork in the road. Those who strive to enter by the narrow door may find themselves facing choices they had not imagined having to make.

[17] Posted by Romkey on 3-18-2010 at 01:33 PM · [top]

Chausables adiaphora?  Perhaps.  But if you do wear one, be careful about the orphreys.

wink

[18] Posted by tired on 3-18-2010 at 01:54 PM · [top]

” It is NOW absolutely clear to all that the national Church itself has formally committed itself to a pattern of life which is contrary to Scripture. “

With all due respect Archbishop Jensen, it HAS LONG BEEN CLEAR to most of us who frequent this site, that the national “Church” has committed itself to a pattern of behavior(s) that are contrary to Scripture and the vast majority of the world-wide Christian community. Glasspool’s confirmation is simply another example of TEC’s on-going and ever-expanding apostasies against God’s Holy Word. It is truly sad to see what has become of this once respected denomination.

[19] Posted by irishanglican2 on 3-18-2010 at 02:23 PM · [top]

#7. Pageantmaster,

We may in the coming days see further statements, although I would not hold my breath on one from the ABC at whom this was particularly targetted

I am surprised that you do not expect some kind of response from the ABC. One does not tell a child that there will be consequences if he/she persists in misbehavior if one does not intend to follow through. That is poor discipline and only encourages more misdeeds.

[20] Posted by Fr. Dale on 3-18-2010 at 09:58 PM · [top]

Hmmm…another round of wheat being separated from the chaff?

So, how many of your jaws would drop if RW comes out and condemns this action?

[21] Posted by B. Hunter on 3-18-2010 at 11:47 PM · [top]

#20 Fr Dale - in the event Lambeth Palace put out a statement which was emailed to ENS as noted on another thread on this blog.  It pretty much tracks previous statements and says that there will now be consultations, which has caused some consternation in revisionist circles, but of course they had been told that this will happen.  I expect the April 19th to 23rd Global South meeting will be important, representing as it does the majority of Communion provinces, and where we will get the first significant responses when they have discussed it, although it is not an official “instrument”.

[22] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 3-19-2010 at 08:31 AM · [top]

I wish I lived in Australia.

[23] Posted by Summersnow on 3-19-2010 at 02:09 PM · [top]

I sent the following out to friends both within and without TEO this morning. The bottom line is that staying is now being complicit in evil and is anchored in some sin, most likely idolatry. The good news is that several of the former responded along the lines this will be their last Sunday in TEO.

Friends,

We’ve reached the point with the election and scheduled of yet another practicing homosexual “bishop” that it is no longer possible to have any Gospel integrity and stay within the Episcopal Organisation. TEO is no longer a Christian body. It doesn’t not believe what the Church believes. It does not act as the Church acts. It does not have the mind of Christ. “If it quacks like a duck . . . ”  TEO’s outright rejection of Jesus and His Way makes it essentially wicked and one cannot remain untouched by such evil. The Episcopal Organisation promotes and funds abortion advocacy. It sues Christians. It promotes the destruction of the traditional family. This is where the dollars go. It does not recognise the design of the Church. This all stems from the central reality that it has no regard for the revealed Word of God.  There is no way around it. There is no fixing or ignoring it.  If you are inside, you now know enough and are complicit in this. There will be a day of accountability.

I am particularly concerned for people of faith trying to remain within this spiritual rot and raise their children to be believers. This will end in catastrophe. Just look up any statistics of children raised “Episcopal” in the last 20 years and see what happens to them . . . the vast majority end up with no faith at all, lost forever.

The idea that “our parish is safe” or “our diocese is safe” is simply a lie. This doesn’t exist. Monies given are supporting intrinsic evil. And spiritual authority and headship matter. Ms. Schori IS the chief spiritual authority for anyone in The Episcopal Organisation. A bishop is “ordained for whole Church” not just a diocese. So now you have two practicing homosexual bishops as your spiritual Elders and “teachers of the faith” along with a majority of “bishops” who simply do not qualify as Christians.

There is no avoiding this. You know enough. You will have to give an account for your choices in life. It’s time to make a decision, one of eternal consequences. For those of us who have left, let’s pray for our friends and loved ones in TEO that they will see the light of God’s truth and grace.  Below is a good word from the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney. Blessings,

[24] Posted by JerryKramer on 3-19-2010 at 05:49 PM · [top]

[24] JerryKramer

The bottom line is that staying is now being complicit in evil and is anchored in some sin, most likely idolatry.

This statement is just waaaay over the top.  People who choose to stay do not of necessity commit idolatry.  There all all kinds of motivations that might cause one to reach such a decision.  Perhaps they see others who need protection.  As just one analogy, you might think of doctors who chose imprisonment by the enemy rather than abandoning the wounded and leaving them without medical care.  You have no ability to read the motives of another in this way.  It’s a great polemic.  But it’s factually and logically wrong.

carl

[25] Posted by carl on 3-19-2010 at 05:57 PM · [top]

Jerry,

I agree with most of what you are saying, though I strongly disagree with this:

The idea that “our parish is safe” or “our diocese is safe” is simply a lie. This doesn’t exist.

We do, in fact belong to a “safe” parish, one which strongly teaches and preaches the one true gospel, week in and week out.  Our children are receiving an incredible Christian education, and we are being fed as well.  There is absolutely no other alternative within hundreds of miles that would come close to the rigor and vigor of the preaching and teaching we enjoy.

We do not give a dime to the Episcopal church.  Although our particular church is one that has offered the “options” on the pledgecard for many years now, we are unsatisfied as to how our monies are being “counted” in the percentage giving to the diocese and national church, so we cannot in good conscience give a dime.

We find plenty of wonderful opportunities to tithe.  I know many would disagree that it is unfair to enjoy and be educated by a church and not give a cent, but I don’t believe the Bible says that the money has to go to one’s particular parish.  We give at least 10 percent to many wonderful Christian charities and have found this to be the best alternative we could come up with.

We do give a lot in terms of time and talent to our particular church, and the minute that it does not have “Episcopal” in its name, we will happily go back to tithing monetarily to our church.

[I would like to take our names off of the “rolls” of the Episcopal church, but so far, have not convinced my husband that this is the thing to do.  Until he agrees, we remain Episcopalian.]

[26] Posted by heart on 3-19-2010 at 06:04 PM · [top]

I agree with JerryKramer, but I would like to add one major correction:  When a bishop is consecrated, he is made a bishop of Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and not just The Episcopal Church.  Katherine Jefferts Schori seems to have forgotten that.

[27] Posted by Cennydd on 3-19-2010 at 06:25 PM · [top]

#24, You and your family will continue to be in our prayers.

[28] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 3-19-2010 at 08:11 PM · [top]

Hey folks, as usual, it’s against SF commenting policy to tell people they need to leave TEC—or ACNA or Rome or the PCA church either.  Of course, this has been known for the past five years, but some folks who have only left TEC—what—six months ago?—just can’t let it go.

Just for the record, I’ll respond—but neither this thread nor this blog is going to be about “Leave TEC Now” as much as some wish that they could make it so, and further comments will be deleted.

RE: “The bottom line is that staying is now being complicit in evil and is anchored in some sin, most likely idolatry.”

Bunk.  And rather self-serving bunk at that.  Of course, all decisions made by man are riddled with sinful motives and sinful behavior—that goes without saying.  But the notion that staying in a corrupt organization necessarily and intrinsically makes one “complicit in evil” is inane and irrational.

RE: “We’ve reached the point with the election and scheduled of yet another practicing homosexual “bishop” that it is no longer possible to have any Gospel integrity and stay within the Episcopal Organisation.”

Sure it is possible.  And what a laugh—what, because there’s a second “practicing homosexual bishop” now it is “no longer possible to have any Gospel integrity”?  How convenient for those who stayed under the first “practicing homosexual bishop!”

RE: “TEO is no longer a Christian body.”

Depends, of course, on what one defines as TEC. Mark Lawrence maintains that his diocese is TEC—in the lower geography of SC.  I happen to agree with him.  And in that lower diocese there is most certainly a Christian body.

RE: “The Episcopal Organisation promotes and funds abortion advocacy. It sues Christians. It promotes the destruction of the traditional family. This is where the dollars go. It does not recognise the design of the Church. This all stems from the central reality that it has no regard for the revealed Word of God.  There is no way around it. There is no fixing or ignoring it.  If you are inside, you now know enough and are complicit in this. There will be a day of accountability.”

So . . . when might we expect those who bellow “Leave TEC Now” to also leave the USA now—because it also promotes and funds abortion advocacy, sues Christians, and promotes the destruction of the traditional family?

Of course, they won’t be consistent with their own stated premises—that would be too inconvenient.  And it also points out the *inability* to be consistent with such irrational and faulty premises as “one must leave all corrupt organizations or it makes one complicit with evil.”

RE: “Ms. Schori IS the chief spiritual authority for anyone in The Episcopal Organisation.”

Well, for some I suppose she is. 

RE: “So now you have two practicing homosexual bishops as your spiritual Elders and “teachers of the faith” . . . “

Oh no!  Two?  Why, why . . . that’s the final straw!!!  I could deal with one—but one more just ruins the whole thing!!  ; > )

RE: “You will have to give an account for your choices in life. It’s time to make a decision, one of eternal consequences.”

Absolutely true.  One must pursue and seek God’s will for what one must do inside or outside TEC.  And since it is not intrinsically immoral for Christians to stay within TEO [which, after all, people maintain is NOT a church]—any more than it is for Christians to stay within the Chinese or the Roman government or Egypt or Babylon—God may certainly call some to stay and some to leave.

RE: “For those of us who have left, let’s pray for our friends and loved ones in TEO that they will see the light of God’s truth and grace.”

Right—because at all costs I want to be just like The Leavers who write such things, rhetoric filled with irrationalities and illogic and bitterness and pretensions as these little screeds are. 

  RE: “Below is a good word from the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.”

Yes indeed—one wonders when the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney will be leaving the Anglican Communion—following his own advice to “take sufficient action to distance themselves from those who have chosen to walk in the path of disobedience” like Kenneth Kearon, the ABC, various Primates, the ACC, and more. 

My personal opinion?  Archbishop Jensen was speaking to both those “inside and outside” TEC and he has been seriously misinterpreted—something that seems to have escaped some who are reading his words.  Since I doubt he was speaking to ACNA when he enjoined people “inside and outside” TEC to sufficiently distance themselves, I’m guessing he was speaking to various parties within the Anglican Communion.  And if that’s so, then his message was [obviously] not “leave TEC now.”

At any rate, all of the above has been pointed out endlessly, and obviously those who deem that everybody should leave TEC now [usually within six months of their own departure, oddly] will never agree with those—both inside and outside TEC—who do not believe it intrinsically immoral for those who are called to remain within TEC.

So it’s yet another rabbit trail about an assertion that has been off-topic here at SF for years now.  Not that that’s ever stopped the obsessed and the compulsive before . . .

[29] Posted by Sarah on 3-19-2010 at 08:25 PM · [top]

Sarah, your comments above were interesting and insightful as usual, but you, ah, got me to thinkin’...

What’s the magic number of partnered homosexual Bishops before it gets bad?

One, was ok.  Two appears to still be all right.  When do the faithful head for the exits?  8? 10?  17?  43.5%?

Just curious….Loved the post by the way!

KTF!...mrb

[30] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 3-19-2010 at 10:14 PM · [top]

The liturgical preferences of a bishop are for more important than his/her sexual preferences.

[31] Posted by DesertDavid on 3-19-2010 at 10:33 PM · [top]

[31] DesertDavid

The liturgical preferences of a bishop are for more important than his/her sexual preferences.

Quite right.  Just as the color of a race horse is far more important than the heart of the race horse.  Two dollars to win on that pretty bay horse over there.  He looks stunning in those colors, don’t you think?  They offset his tone quite nicely.

carl

[32] Posted by carl on 3-19-2010 at 11:09 PM · [top]

[31] DesertDavid

...unless of course you were being ironic.  Is there a chance you were being ironic?  At least I hope so.

carl

[33] Posted by carl on 3-19-2010 at 11:11 PM · [top]

Desert Dave,
In Glasspool’s case we’re not talking ‘preferences’ we’re talking ‘actions’.

[34] Posted by Bo on 3-19-2010 at 11:15 PM · [top]

Carl, I wonder.

[35] Posted by Cennydd on 3-19-2010 at 11:20 PM · [top]

The liturgical preferences of a bishop are for more important than his/her sexual preferences.

OK, so by that standard, we can depose every TEC bishop who has adopted the ‘79 prayer book.  I think Desert David may be on to something.

[36] Posted by tjmcmahon on 3-19-2010 at 11:53 PM · [top]

#36, I like the way you think.

‘Liturgical practices’? Really? How about what the bishop’s theology is? That should trump everything, I would hope. The theology obviously should inform the bishop’s liturgical choices as well as lifestyle choices as well as morals as well as financial dealings as well as just about everything that happens in the bishop’s life. There is always a gap between theory and practice, but if the theory is wrong then any chance of the practice being appropriate is random.

/Scorn

[37] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 3-20-2010 at 05:51 AM · [top]

Sarah, just one little caveat.  Is the analogy of “belonging” to the United States with belonging to a church, accurate? 
We aren’t in sacramental communion with everyone in the US and with its leaders.  I think the reality of sacramental communion should enter into people’s consideration when they think about these matters.  Does it make sense to worry about whether folks get any of one’s money, and then signify membership in one body with the same folks by one’s reception of communion? 
Well, like everything else of importance, this is a theological issue, and not everyone will understand it in the same way.  But I felt some response was needed to your government analogy.
Susan Peterson

[38] Posted by eulogos on 3-20-2010 at 09:46 AM · [top]

Mike Bertaut:

What’s the magic number of partnered homosexual Bishops before it gets bad?

What was the “magic number” of Arian bishops in the fourth century (at a time when you would insist that the Church was as Roman Catholic as she is now) before things got bad?

As you know, J. H. Newman left our Church to join yours.  His observations on that subject:

The episcopate, whose action was so prompt and concordant at Nicæa on the rise of Arianism, did not, as a class or order of men, play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council; and the laity did. The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not.

What you imagine to be the infallibility of the Church doesn’t seem to have prevented that from happening, nor was the problem readily resolved through an intervention by the Bishop of Rome. 

What was the “magic number” of supposedly celibate Roman clergy in the twentieth century who died from AIDS-related illnesses before things got bad?

And what was the “magic number” of duplicitous bishops who covered up the horrendous sexual abuse of children by moving predatory priests around instead of handing them over to the authorities before things got bad?

Many people think that Cardinal Bernard Law, along with a number of others, belongs in prison for his part in all of that.  Instead he has found a safe haven at the Vatican.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

Since when does the truth of the Catholic religion stand or fall with the ability or inability of some of the Church’s bishops to lapse into heresy, or commit sins and even crimes that are incompatible with her faith and practice?

At what point should faithful Christians in the Roman Church “head for the exits” and where shall they go if they do?

Many faithful Christians remain on watch in the Episcopal Church, the Church of England, and throughout the Anglican Communion, as they always have.  Cheer us on if you will, ignore us if you prefer.

But you are going to need a better stick to beat us with if that’s what you have in mind, and not just 43.5% of the time. wink

[39] Posted by episcopalienated on 3-20-2010 at 11:44 AM · [top]

UH, that would be , just as Catholic as she is now! 
The bishop of Rome DID come in on the right side of that one.  As Newman said ,“not that, in the Arian hurricane, Sees more than can be numbered did not bend before its fury, and fall off from St. Athanasius,—not that the crowd of Oriental Bishops did not need to be sustained during the contest by the voice and the eye of St. Leo;”

The rest of that stuff is moral failures which, like the poor, we will always have with us, and is irrelevant to ecclesiastical discussion. 
However, let me say this:
In organizations you see this thing where there is a way executives are supposed to proceed and they do it.  Then suddenly the wind shifts, and doing it that way becomes out of style, old fashioned, or even the essence of evil,  so off with their heads! 
Cardinal Law acted the way the institution had taught him to behave.  LIke everyone else at that time,  he believed what the shrinks were then saying, that this stuff was curable by therapy, and he sent guys to therapy.  And like just about every other bishop, he kept things quiet and protected the institution,probably also telling himself this also protected victims from shame.  So then the church is supposed to throw him to the dogs, after he had believed what everybody believed at the time, including those now screaming for heads, and because he served as he was expected to serve?  I am glad the church behaved more decently than that.  Losing his See was plenty of shame to deal with. For the bishop of a major See,  his current job is quite a comedown in the world.  He has plenty of time to think and pray, and I am sure he has accused himself since all of this came to the fore and there have been victim testimonies made public.

As for whether he “should be in jail”  that is up to the state, particularly the DA of the jurisdiction in which any crime was committed.  Cardinal Law was allowed to leave the US.  I believe Italy and the US have an extradition treaty.  Were he to be indicted, the Church would in any case direct him to return and stand trial.  Since the DA doesn’t see a prosecutable offense,  I guess legally one can’t say that he “should” be in jail. 

As for his ultimate, true deserts, let us leave that in the hands of God! 

Susan Peterson

[40] Posted by eulogos on 3-20-2010 at 01:21 PM · [top]

eulogos:

The bishop of Rome DID come in on the right side of that one.

But the point I was making had nothing to do with which side St. Leo “came in on” during the Arian controversy, or who he sustained while it was ongoing.  His personal orthodoxy is not at issue, unlike that of a significant number of bishops whose lapses into heresy nevertheless did not fundamentally undermine the Catholic nature of the Church.

The Arian problem was formally and finally addressed by the Church at the first Council of Constantinople, convened by the emperor Theodosius and presided over by the Patriarch of Antioch.  The dispute was not simply settled by the papacy and could still have been resolved with the same results without its influence, although that influence was extremely beneficial.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

In organizations you see this thing where there is a way executives are supposed to proceed and they do it. Then suddenly the wind shifts, and doing it that way becomes out of style, old fashioned, or even the essence of evil, so off with their heads!
Cardinal Law acted the way the institution had taught him to behave.

As a Catholic Christian, do you really wish to say that?  If so, your view of Catholic ecclesiology is considerably lower than my own, and I would certainly want to stop short of describing the Roman Church as an institution in those terms.  But perhaps my opinion of it should be revised downward.  Would you care to guide me in that direction?

The “wind shifts” - and so does the Church?  Upon which particular “shift” may we blame Cardinal Law’s behavior, and that of others like him?  Historically, the Church has known how to deal quite effectively with priests who failed to uphold their vows of chastity.  What direction was the wind blowing in when that ceased to be the case?

And what of the Episcopal Church?  It’s gotten a bit windy our way too, and many of us think that’s quite a problem as we struggle to lean into it.  Many a bishop acts these days in “the way the institution taught him to behave,” but we view that as a dilemma, not an excuse.  Isn’t that what the rest of you keep telling us to do?

LIke everyone else at that time, he believed what the shrinks were then saying, that this stuff was curable by therapy, and he sent guys to therapy. And like just about every other bishop, he kept things quiet and protected the institution,probably also telling himself this also protected victims from shame.

No, not like everyone else.  The anguished parents of some of the victims didn’t much care “what the shrinks were then saying” when they learned that their children had become victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy.  Why did the Church care? 

Acts of sexual predation aimed at unwitting children did not have to wait until recent decades to become sins, or crimes.  And who could fail to understand that “therapy” wasn’t working when those who had undergone the “cure” kept right on doing it?

The State of Louisiana saw fit to sentence Father Gilbert Gauthe to 20 years in prison as early as 1985 for eleven counts of molestation.  In the meantime, Father Geoghan and other priests were still getting packed off to treatment while racking up additional victims.  The cat was out of the bag at that point and how could even the diehard “institutionalists” among Rome’s bishops have failed to notice that the sexual predators they were busy covering up for essentially deserved a similar fate?

I don’t buy it, and I’d have to embrace an equally low view of Catholic moral theology in order to accept your version of an explanation as to how things turned out the way they did.  The bishops had decisions to make, and they made them.  And they got away with it, with disastrous consequences.  But the Christian principles that should have guided their actions were in place all along.  They just chose not to follow them. 

Some of us are at work trying to combat the influence of Liberal Modernism in our denomination and it is a daunting task.  You go and do likewise in your own and perhaps we’ll find some truly common ground. 

After all, even if we get to the point where 43.5% of the House of Bishops can use the same restrooms as their spouses, your view of papal supremacy still isn’t going to look any more compelling to us than it does now.  But we might be able to work something out if we can get past mutual recriminations as to whose Church is in worse shape, and why we haven’t already left ours.

[41] Posted by episcopalienated on 3-20-2010 at 04:51 PM · [top]

Wow, looks like I’ve opened yet another unintended can of worms.  But, for the record, I wasn’t comparing TEC to Rome, or any other stable of the faith.

I was merely wondering if there should exist a breaking point at which the heat in the kitchen gets high enough to hit the road.  Obviously over the years many folks have reached their breaking points with many faiths, I was just curious what Sarah’s was.  Probably none of my business.

Anyway, since you brought it up, no matter what the actions of the Roman Catholic Bishops over the centuries, as a rule, Canon Law has stood firm as the standard, and at least the faithful knew there was a standard to hold folks to.  I am unsure within TEC if anything holds the level of prestige and solidity that Canon Law has held in Rome over the centuries.  That is, I’m not seeing too much of the Roman Church re-defining sin lately, while TEC seems to relish that proposition (one reason I’m currently unchurched, among many).

Thanks for noticing, though.

KTF!...mrb

[42] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 3-20-2010 at 05:28 PM · [top]

Mike Bertaut:

Wow, looks like I’ve opened yet another unintended can of worms.

Oh, I wouldn’t worry about that.  We think too little of worms.  They can’t enjoy being cooped up all the time, but coaxing them back into the can after an outing can be quite a challenge.

Based on some of your previous comments, I was under the impression that you are a Roman Catholic (and a rather nice one at that) or at least in the process of becoming one - which would be OK too.  But I do apologize if that was a case of mistaken identity.

Sarah Hey is remarkably adept at handling these “breaking point” issues, but your comment got my back up for some reason.  Although, not without an admixture of humor over the “math problem” you raise.

The question as to when too much is more than enough only has individual answers, I suppose.  Some people have needed to get their children out of dear old ECUSA posthaste, and I’m glad that they have done so.

But some of us old water buffalos may have what it takes to stay a while longer, and there are those of us who just aren’t quite sure where we should go if we did leave, even if that’s a question we may ultimately have to face along with others.

Let me put it this way.  The Episcopal Church has provided me with a point of entry into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church headed up by our Lord Jesus Christ.  That is the real Church to which I belong.  But my denomination never has been and never will be identical to, or coextensive with, that Church itself.  Not even really crazy Episcopalians or raving revisionists believe otherwise.

The open-ended nature of Anglican Christianity is a glorious undertaking in the life and history of the Church Universal, one very much worth hanging around for, in my opinion.  Nevertheless, Anglicans understand that our “experiment” could one day come to an end, but with the knowledge that Christ’s Holy Catholic Church would then continue without it until our Lord’s return.  A fact both challenging and comforting at the same time, at least for us.

Anyway, since you brought it up, no matter what the actions of the Roman Catholic Bishops over the centuries, as a rule, Canon Law has stood firm as the standard, and at least the faithful knew there was a standard to hold folks to. I am unsure within TEC if anything holds the level of prestige and solidity that Canon Law has held in Rome over the centuries.

As an Anglo-Catholic, I know exactly what I believe and why.  And if anyone suggested to me that the “standard” set by the canons and present practices of the Episcopal Church is the only one I ought to follow, I would laugh out loud.  Romanists, on the other hand, may be tasked with actually following theirs more closely, even if neither side is entirely free to use them as an excuse for how things eventually turn out.

Like Chesterton, I believe in a form of Church government where the dead have as great a say in things as the living, a true Communion of Saints that transcends party loyalties and denominational divisions.  The folks in the House of Bishops who love to drone on may continue as they please.  I can still listen to the voices of Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas (and saints whose names begin with other letters of the alphabet wink ) and I can’t use the Broad Church Bunch as an excuse for not believing and doing the right thing.  Not if I have a brain in my head.

I find it exciting.  Can I get away with it forever where I’m at?  Probably not, but I’m not going to be around that long anyway, not in this world.  And God has graciously spared us the knowledge of how all this is going to turn out anyway, concerned as He may be that we not give up too much or too soon out of fear.  He will settle for our faithfulness, and nothing less, with or without “success.” 

In the meantime, let’s study Church history and the lives of the saints and make as much mischief as we can while advancing the Kingdom of Heaven in our own lives and in the lives of those around us.

If you need to pursue a different course, Vaya con Dios, my brother.  And if an alarm goes off in my head when we hit 43.5% of anything, I could end up right behind you. 

One of these days!  Maybe! smile

[43] Posted by episcopalienated on 3-20-2010 at 08:13 PM · [top]

I don’t think this argument is really worth having, as no one will be swayed by it and it leaves hard feelings in its wake.

Rome has lasted a long time and has had many many scandals, some worse than this one if that can be imagined.  We never officially called evil good,  but we have done a lot of evil.  May God be more merciful than we deserve! 
 
For me the problem with TEC is more that it isn’t maintaining any kind of theology at all.  I really think Spong is worse than gay or lesbian bishops. 
I think that an impulse of compassion and a [misguided] sense of fairness is behind the desire to normalize homosexuality and I can see how some people can see it that way.  I don’t think it can be justified from either Scripture or Tradition (or from Natural Law, if one believes there is such a thing.)  So I think it has to be a mistake.  But it is the lack of adherence to those sources of the truth which is the real problem.  Officially, from the Top, Rome still does that.  I think that’s important. 

But we do have our problems and our faults.  I don’t want to get in a shouting match.
Susan Peterson

[44] Posted by eulogos on 3-20-2010 at 08:22 PM · [top]

Magnificent post #3 RM Bruton, how true and how sad

Fr. James Byrum

[45] Posted by James Byrum on 3-20-2010 at 08:45 PM · [top]

eulogos:

I don’t want to get in a shouting match.

Now you’ve done it!  You’ve triggered the semi-automatic “Song Dedication” feature.

Some people never learn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpW8Jvl9low

Excuse me while I go have a good cry.

And three cheers for Natural Law.  Just not that other guy. tongue wink

[46] Posted by episcopalienated on 3-20-2010 at 09:02 PM · [top]

Perhaps part of the motivation to cover-up the abuse is due to attitudes about the church and the priesthood. The church has been personified and almost semi-deified in Roman Catholic tradition.  The Church is their ‘Mother’ and is revered as almost the equivalent of Mary.  To bring shame upon the Church by disclosing the abuse would shame both the church and the priesthood and like shaming or defaming someone’s Mother and that makes it more than just institutional loyalty.

[47] Posted by Floridian on 3-20-2010 at 09:43 PM · [top]

47….then what was Skip aka Gladstone’s motivation for doing the same thing?  There might be something to what you say, but on the whole I think it is just a thing which institutions do.  And the church does have its human side,  and on that side, it acts just the way everything else human does. 

#46,  I don’t understand… sorry I don’t get it.  And I can’t go listen to the song because my husband and daughter are around and whatever it is they will say,  what are you listening to that for?    Did I seriously say something wrong in trying to be conciliatory?

Susan Peterson

[48] Posted by eulogos on 3-20-2010 at 09:50 PM · [top]

#47. Floridian,
I think you have made and interesting and insightful observation.

[49] Posted by Fr. Dale on 3-20-2010 at 09:51 PM · [top]

In addition, the Roman Church traditionally is a bigger, more authoritative part of the person’s psyche and family life…most times going back generations and holds more power over its members than, say, a Methodist or Baptist church.  If one is not able to take communion because you are excommunicated, divorced or feel estranged because they have been abused and cannot trust their priest, they are really faced with a dilemma.  They can’t just walk across the street and become a Presbyterian or join Calvary Chapel or Saddleback like a Methodist or Baptist can do.  A Catholic doesn’t have that recourse.  And if a person is abused by the Roman church, the hurt of the betrayal will be worse, far more severe because of the closer, deeper, more significant and more exclusive bond with the church (Mother) and the priest (Father).

[50] Posted by Floridian on 3-20-2010 at 10:11 PM · [top]

Many Romans can - and do - become Episcopalians. Romans alienated by their Church are our single largest market. There are several parishes in Los Angeles where the congregation is overwhelmingly former Romans by huge majorities - St. Mary’s Palms, St. Paul’s Pomona, St. Thomas Hollywood, are among the most prominent. We need to stretch out our arms and welcome these wounded souls.

[51] Posted by DesertDavid on 3-20-2010 at 10:51 PM · [top]

eulogos:

#46, I don’t understand… sorry I don’t get it. And I can’t go listen to the song because my husband and daughter are around and whatever it is they will say, what are you listening to that for? Did I seriously say something wrong in trying to be conciliatory?

NO!

I’m just goofing around with you.  And the selection is the un bel di vedremo from Madame Butterfly.

Crank up the speakers and let ‘er rip!  They’ll get over it. cheese

[52] Posted by episcopalienated on 3-20-2010 at 11:26 PM · [top]

Desert David, Running from abuse in the Roman Church into the arms of Episcopalians in Lost Angels, Californicatia is like running from a toilet bowl into a sewer.
Yes, the hierarchical system fosters abuse of all kinds from spiritual error such as gnosticism, liberalism, heresy, syncretism to moral error and cover-ups.  However, congregationalists and councilliar/presbytery systems (as well as the secular/business world) are NOT exempt from sin and abuse.

The most frequent sexual abuse of a child is committed by parents, then family, then neighbors, then school/church.  Anyone who has power over or is stronger or older than another person may encounter a temptation to use that advantage. 

Abuse can only occur if a person’s heart has been hardened, their humanity damaged, their definitions of basic human core icons and perceptions ( of God, self, love, truth, life,family, man, woman, father, mother, etc.) have been distorted by their experience and the modeling and teaching of their parents and culture/environment [cultural violence, against women and children (in pagan religions, such as Hindu and Mohammedism)ritual abuse, cannibalism] and they are motivated by evil (fear, pain, anger, hatred) rather than love and good will.

The cure for such soul-sickness is confession (defusing the shame and guilt, exposing the evil and coming to agree with the definitions of good and evil in God’s word), repentance and accountability in a loving healthy holy trustworthy safe (repentant and accountable) church family.  Abuse occurs in secrecy and isolation and is a betrayal of trust and perversion of usually a family or church relationship…and must be healed in a trustworthy safe divined and church family.  The hardest thing for a person abused spiritually, physically and sexually as a child, especially in the family and/or in the church, is to come to trust God and other Christians. 

That’s what makes the disgrace of the Episcopal Church becoming a synagogue of Satan, teaching sin, both heresy and immorality, all the more angering and dangerous.

I fear for the eternal soul of anyone fomenting these evil agendas and acts against human beings, against little children, perverting the holy Gospel and the Word of God, using the Holy Name of Jesus Christ to deliver people into captivity, depravity, disease and death rather than releasing them to eternal life and the righteousness, peace and joy of the Lord.

[53] Posted by Floridian on 3-21-2010 at 07:43 AM · [top]

Correction - Abuse occurs in secrecy and isolation and is a betrayal of trust and perversion of usually a family or church relationship…and must be healed in the trustworthy safe divine relationship *with GOD, Father, Son, Holy Spirit* (Psalm 27:10) and a *healthy loving Scripture-abiding, preaching, teaching, discipling, life-respecting* church family.  If a church does not teach holiness of life and the sanctity of life, they are not teaching the whole Gospel.  The Church must guard and cherish Truth, Love and Life as defined by the Commandments, all of Scripture and by the very Being of GOD (John 14:6) and not compromise, counterfeit or distort them.

[54] Posted by Floridian on 3-21-2010 at 07:54 AM · [top]

RE: “Obviously over the years many folks have reached their breaking points with many faiths, I was just curious what Sarah’s was.”

Hey Mike—I don’t think I’ve ever said mine in public.  ; > )

But I think my capacity to endure corrupt institutions has been demonstrated in my own life, not merely with The Episcopal Church.  It has something to do, remember, with my theology of the Church and my theology of basic human depravity and the evil that is rampant within organizations.

Eulogos:
RE: “We aren’t in sacramental communion with everyone in the US and with its leaders.”

True—but keep in mind two things.

First, Father Kramer did not use the argument of sacramental communion—which is a different one among about six that I can see for leaving TEC [all of which I have negations of]—and I was only responding to his rather wild assertion that people can’t stay in corrupt institutions [to the level of TEC’s corruption, which I think is a rather arbitrary set level too] and have gospel integrity.  Of course, manifestly, and down through the ages, this is untrue.  Christians have stayed in corrupt institutions from Egypt on down and performed admirably and to the will of God.  And further, it’s rather difficult to divide out the “Egypts” of this world from their religion—it was a, shall we say, “Constantinian” state before Constantine lived, and the government and ruling authority was integrally related with its pagan heartless bloody faith.  It is rather hard to separate the Pharaoh from the Egyptian God!  The notion that Joseph could perform faithfully, and rise in the ranks in such an evil system is truly breathtaking.

Second, keep in mind that I am a thorough Protestant in regards to the conception of the Church.  The Church is that invisible union of all believers who are in Christ, down through the ages.  Period.  And I am in sacramental communion with those persons—indeed, as a believer who is in Christ myself I cannot help being in communion with all other Christians, whether Pentecostal, PCA, Baptist, or whatever.  I am in Christ.  Therefore I am in Communion.

Now—in regards to the corporal act of taking Communion on a Sunday, one can never be in a *human organization* that does not have wheat and chaff in it.  But that human, man-made organization is NOT the Church.  It is an organizational entity developed by mankind, who are made in the image of God and “organization-formers” in the midst of which is the Church.  So if we are to define “being in Communion” as “she took the bread and the wine in the company of those who also took the bread and the wine who are not in Christ” then we are all doomed.

In answer to this question: “Does it make sense to worry about whether folks get any of one’s money, and then signify membership in one body with the same folks by one’s reception of communion?”

Yes—I think it does.  For one thing—I *am* a member of that organization which is TEC.  I do not try to deny it or spin it otherwise.  I am a member of a very corrupt organization.  But Holy Eucharist—that is that thanksgiving which all Christians no matter their vision of the sacramental partake in.  The free-church evangelical little recognizes what power and glory and beauty they are participating in, but participate in it they do.

In short and to sum up—yet again—I am a Protestant.

; > )

[55] Posted by Sarah on 3-21-2010 at 08:45 AM · [top]

So if we are to define “being in Communion” as “she took the bread and the wine in the company of those who also took the bread and the wine who are not in Christ” then we are all doomed.

Even those of us of a more Catholic bent can see the wisdom of this.  Thank you Sarah.  None of us is “worthy” of Communion (the point Cranmer made with the Prayer of Humble Access).

One of the wiser things I have read on SF (and I don’t remember who first said it, or if they were quoting someone else), is that we should never set some sort of “tripwire” for leaving a church (I will leave TEC when TEC does “A”). Rather, if we are called by God to a new place, we should go. I had my own tripwire all set up and was almost anticipating the day TEC would cross it, but God had other plans. My own decision was put to me rather starkly by TEC when they deposed certain particular priests- was I to remain “in communion” with TEC, or was I to remain in Communion with the Church as I knew it. “Both” had ceased to be an option.

Now, would this preclude me from receiving Communion in a TEC Church, per se?  Not from my own point of view, if I were to be visiting a parish with a priest who did not recognize the depositions. There are any number of good priests still in TEC, I don’t question the validity of their orders.  Although I have not had conversation yet with any bishop I would trust the answer from (this is all kind of foreign territory- not something covered in catechism class in the 60s).  Even when still in TEC, I made the point of NOT receiving communion from Thew Forrester when I had the opportunity.  Given that several primates have refused communion when the TEC PB is in the room (much less from said PB) I think I am on safe ground.

[56] Posted by tjmcmahon on 3-21-2010 at 09:24 AM · [top]

In my view, all Christian Churches should recognize the orders and sacraments of other Christian Churches, and all Christians should respect the rights of other Christians to hold different beliefs on debatable issues. The notion of “I’m correct, everyone who disagrees is wrong” is what is wrong with the Church - liberal and conservative - today. To illustrate, Episcopal, Presbyterian and Roman celebrations of the Eucharist are equally valid. Robert Duncan is as much a bishop as Katherine Jefferts Schorri. Abortion is a subject on which reasonable minds can differ. All I’m asking is for everyone on all sides of everything to do away with the notion that “my preferences are truth.” I prefer Mass celebrated in a chasuble, sung and with incense, but a house Mass in street clothes is just as valid. The low Diocese of Sydney is wrong to prohibit chasubles and the even lower Church of Ireland is wrong to prohibit incense. Nor should the Anglo-Catholic bishops mandate either of the former. I believe life begins at viability, but I respect those who hold other beliefs and I don’t seek to use the government to force my beliefs on others as a “norm.” Why can’t we live and let live?

[57] Posted by DesertDavid on 3-21-2010 at 10:33 AM · [top]

#57, because theology matters. On that Archbishop Jensen, who is very low church, and I, being quite high church, agree. I’m sure that gladdens the heart of the good archbish.

It matters even more when there are a large, if dwindling, group of people who call themselves Christian who are not in fact Christian. Many of them are Anglicans of one sort or another.

[58] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 3-21-2010 at 10:41 AM · [top]

#57
NO!  Abortion is NOT NOT NOT a subject on which reasonable minds can differ!!!!!

I disagree with you about everything else too,  but I think those things fall into different categories. 

But anyone who knows the Scripture “Before you were in your mother’s womb, I knew you.”  knows we cannot destroy unborn human beings.  Anyone whose heart is in the right place knows this. 

Susan Peterson

[59] Posted by eulogos on 3-21-2010 at 11:56 AM · [top]

DesertDavid:
“Abortion is a subject on which reasonable minds can differ.” 
“Why can’t we live and let live?”
Do I even need to comment on this for the irony to become more obvious?

[60] Posted by Fidela on 3-21-2010 at 12:09 PM · [top]

#59, On the abortion statement of DesertDavid i.e. “abortion is a subject on which reasonable minds can agree>”

Color me unreasonable.

Oh, and is reason really that valuable in the kingdom of heaven?  Did I miss a Beatitude somewhere along the line: “Blessed are the reasonable, for they shall inherit the Kingdom.”  I think not.

I can find little evidence anywhere that Reason = Salvation, yet I see it brandished as a sword in every debate where someone is attempting to take the Christian Faith away from its foundations and move it onto shaky, sandy ground.

Color me UN-reasonable.

KTF!...mrb

[61] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 3-21-2010 at 12:14 PM · [top]

RE: “all Christians should respect the rights of other Christians to hold different beliefs on debatable issues . . . “

Right.  In my view, one debatable issue that springs to mind is my personal theology that we should return to some of the Incan practices of sacrificing virgins [preferably male] on the altars of our gods.

The problem, of course, is that even though I and my admittedly tiny band [but growing!] of Incan Male Virgin Sacrificers have declared this a “debatable” issue and not worth dividing over with other Christians, others have vigorously “debated” and further they have vociferously protested my unique and historic and thoroughly traditional belief.  Despite my well-reasoned theological tome, To Set Our Hope On Christ, they have even gone so far as to declare that those like me who happen to believe in Incan Male Virgin Sacrificing cannot believe the Gospel and should not be leaders in a Christian church.  I have pointed out to them repeatedly that my beliefs—again, about a completely debatable issue—have the backing of reason, tradition, and Holy Scripture, not to mention that there are genetic proclivities to keep in mind—and that our masterful theological treatise mentioned Christ several times, along with the words “who we are” and “baptismal vows” and “justice” and “hope.” 

What more do they want?????  How many times must we lay out our theology?

If only they would agree with me, that the issue is debatable, we would all have peace and true unity amongst us Christians.  We ourselves are not inclined to force upon others our views.  All sacrifices are, of course, consensual and mutual and loving, done with the utmost sincerity, not to mention style and flair. 

Why cannot the same grace be given to us, about what is clearly a debatable issue anyway?

[62] Posted by Sarah on 3-21-2010 at 12:19 PM · [top]

What eulogos said in [59]:

NO!  Abortion is NOT NOT NOT a subject on which reasonable minds can differ!!!!!

People can reasonably differ on tax rates.  People can reasonably differ on gun control, and nationalized health care, and the war in Iraq.  But there is no reasonable difference of opinion about abortion.  It is manifestly evil.  Those who support abortion support manifest evil.  There is no legitimate alternative opinion.

Period.  End of line.  End of File.

carl
Who is mighty glad eulogos didn’t have any large heavy objects within reach when she made that last comment…

[63] Posted by carl on 3-21-2010 at 12:28 PM · [top]

“Abortion is a subject on which reasonable minds can differ.”  NOT redeemed minds.  NOT persons with the mind of Christ. NOT persons with the mind of the Church Catholic.

Elective abortion has everywhere consistently been condemned by Judaism and Christianity for millenia.

“Intentional abortions are distinguished by medical writers into two classes.

  * When they are brought about for social reasons, they are called criminal abortions; and they are rightly condemned under any circumstances whatsoever. “Often, very often,” said Dr. Hodge, of the University of Pennsylvania, “must all the eloquence and all the authority of the practitioner be employed; often he must, as it were, grasp the conscience of his weak and erring patient, and let her know, in language not to be misunderstood, that she is responsible to the Creator for the life of the being within her” (Wharton and Stille’s Med. Jurispr., Vol. on Abortion, 11).
  * The name of obstetrical abortion is given by physicians to such as is performed to save the life of the mother. Whether this practice is ever morally lawful we shall consider below.
It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, “Thou shalt not kill”. The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that “evil is never to be done that good may come of it”; or, which is the same thing, that “a good end cannot justify a bad means”. Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.

The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that “it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.” Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”. Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.

However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

  * That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
  * That the immediate effect be good in itself;
  * That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
  * That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.

All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother’s life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother’s life is in itself as good as the saving of the child’s life. Of course provision must be made for the child’s spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

[64] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 3-21-2010 at 12:31 PM · [top]

[62] Sarah

practices of sacrificing virgins [preferably male] on the altars of our gods.

Preferably male?  PREFERABLY MALE!?  What kind of matriarchal non-inclusive un-dolphin-like doctrine are you promoting here?  The theological tome in question - To Set Our Hope On Christ - clearly states that sacrificial virgins are to be selected in an egalitarian manner.  Chapter 4, Section 3, paragraph 1.

carl

[65] Posted by carl on 3-21-2010 at 12:50 PM · [top]

Because Christ himself was a sacrificed virgin male, he becomes a sign for all of our hopes in that means toward justice and peace.

[66] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 3-21-2010 at 01:28 PM · [top]

RE: “Do I even need to comment on this for the irony to become more obvious?”

Fidela, I believe that Desert David had meant the whole “live and let live” meme to apply only to those who are capable of voicing their displeasure at being arbitrarily killed at the ballot box or with the use of guns or dollars as a form of protest.  If you don’t have voting ability in sufficient enough numbers—or guns or dollars—then “live and let live” doesn’t apply to the likes of you.

RE: “Because Christ himself was a sacrificed virgin male, he becomes a sign for all of our hopes in that means toward justice and peace.”

Now see—Timothy Fountain himself gets the whole Scriptural foundation of what was once a notable and worthy tradition in certain cultures, and thanks to the Christian faith will now enjoy a revival in practice with the appropriate gender, albeit with both genders participating in different ways, because Christianity is nothing if not inclusive.

[67] Posted by Sarah on 3-21-2010 at 01:53 PM · [top]

Sarah here are some thoughts: 
1. There is no THERE there!  If a church is people and all the people have gone—then there is no church.
2. What you have remaining is a building with union activists, and docile, obedient voters for the next round of governmental changes.
3. Look at it this way: transgender surgery is not limited to one changing one’s own sexuality. It appears to me that TEC has already had a transgender operation—from religious to political.  Not exactly bloodless surgery, but surely surgery just the same.

[68] Posted by lost on 3-21-2010 at 02:48 PM · [top]

carl:

practices of sacrificing virgins [preferably male] on the altars of our gods.

Preferably male? PREFERABLY MALE!? What kind of matriarchal non-inclusive un-dolphin-like doctrine are you promoting here?

Goodness gracious, is she at it again?

We are subjected to this whole “sacrifice male virgins on the altar” routine every time she throws over another boyfriend, and there have been many.

If only she could find a man worthy of her talents and abilities among our ranks, we could go back to sleeping soundly in our beds at night without living in fear of what she might do if she got the chance.  But how likely is that?

And what can you expect from a woman who was raised by wolves until they packed her off to charm school after they decided they’d had enough?  Not that it did much good.

There’s only one thing that might calm her down.  A manual launch of the dreaded semi-automatic “Cute Picture” feature.  She actually likes animals and it’s worth a try.

Oh, Ms. H-e-y!  Look over here, my dear, at what we have for you:

http://petcaretips.net/pelican.jpg

Wasn’t that nice?  You be nice too, now, and don’t hurt anybody!

What’s that?  No, the pelican is not trying to eat the bear. cool smile

[69] Posted by episcopalienated on 3-21-2010 at 03:22 PM · [top]

#68 - wrote:

1. There is no THERE there!  If a church is people and all the people have gone—then there is no church.

Actually, a church is not just people, it is spiritually-regenerated people (John 3:3) worshipping GOD The Father, The Son and Savior, The Lord Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit, who worship in Spirit and in Truth, who are partakers together in eternal life because of knowing (the word means close intimate loving union, experiential knowledge as in marriage) God.  (John 17:3)

This worship is not NOT NOT self-worship, NOT man/woman devised culture-influenced unscriptural agenda idealogy-worship NOT pagan false god-worship.  NOT one-world religion worship.

Puh-leeze be specific.  If you give these people a micro-speck and they take a mile.

[70] Posted by Floridian on 3-21-2010 at 03:56 PM · [top]

Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.

- George Bernard Shaw

[71] Posted by Elder Oyster on 3-21-2010 at 04:04 PM · [top]

#69. episcopalienated,

If only she could find a man worthy of her talents and abilities among our ranks, we could go back to sleeping soundly in our beds at night without living in fear of what she might do if she got the chance.

Are you offering yourself as a companion or a sacrifice?

[72] Posted by Fr. Dale on 3-21-2010 at 04:06 PM · [top]

Fr. Dale:

If only she could find a man worthy of her talents and abilities among our ranks, we could go back to sleeping soundly in our beds at night without living in fear of what she might do if she got the chance.

Are you offering yourself as a companion or a sacrifice?

Yikes!

Well, that whole “sacrifice” thing is completely out, it would be much too messy.  And I’m old enough to be her . . . uh . . . an older relative.  Yeah, that’s it, an older relative.

Although a man in my age group could be exactly what she needs.

I suppose a date at Steak ‘N Shake might be all right, but only if she pays, tip included.  I have my standards too, you know, and mine can’t be lowered either.

A trip to Golden Corral would be even better.  We could move on from there.  Only no line dancing in one of those country western bars she hangs out in with her friends.

Of course, if she’d prefer to take me out for haute cuisine, I won’t put up much of a fuss.  But then I’d want flowers.  And some cologne would be nice too, just not Aqua Velva.  Doesn’t have to be wrapped.

But I still don’t know.  I think Andy Warhol said it best:  “The most dynamic attractions are the ones that take place between opposites that never meet.”

Perhaps we should leave the status quo alone.  That way I can go on admiring her from afar, and she can’t get close enough to beat me up if things don’t work out. tongue rolleye

[73] Posted by episcopalienated on 3-21-2010 at 05:17 PM · [top]

#73. episcopalienated

“The most dynamic attractions are the ones that take place between opposites that never meet.”Perhaps we should leave the status quo alone.  That way I can go on admiring her from afar,..

This all sounds like the plot of “Remains of the Day” with Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins. Unshakable repression.

[74] Posted by Fr. Dale on 3-21-2010 at 05:24 PM · [top]

RE: “And what can you expect from a woman who was raised by wolves until they packed her off to charm school after they decided they’d had enough?”

Hey, Episcopalienated—how did you know I was raised by wolves and sent to charm school?

The former is the only thing that has allowed me to achieve Meanest Blogger In The Entire Universe—and given that title by universal acclamation by both revisionist and conservative Anglicans, surviving the obviously very male world of StandFirm as well.

RE: “Oh, Ms. H-e-y!  Look over here, my dear, at what we have for you:” 

That *is* very nice.  Very cute.  Very sweet.  The millennium will allow us to see more of such things.

However, any male who took me to Steak and Shake or [horrors] Golden Corral would—quite clearly—not be worthy of me, nor would he be an Anglican.

I am reminded of that excellent father, wise King Otto of Happy Valley who had such a happy kingdom:

“It was called Happy Valley, and it was ruled over by a wise old king called Otto. And all his subjects flourished and were happy, and there were no discontents or grumblers, because wise King Otto had had them all put to death, along with the trade union leaders, many years before. And all the happy folk of Happy Valley sang and danced all day long, and anyone who was for any reason miserable or unhappy or who had any difficult personal problem was prosecuted under the Happiness Act.

At any rate, he also was concerned about the worthiness of those suitors who pursued his daughter:

OTTO
Do you really love my daughter?

EBERHARD
I do.

OTTO
Well in that case, I must set you a task to prove you worthy of her hand in marriage.

EBERHARD
(standing)

I accept.

OTTO
You must climb to the highest part of the castle, first thing tomorrow morning, armed only with your sword, and jump out of the window.

(A crowd waits expectantly in the street below the castle)

VILLAGER
Hey look, there he is!

(The crowd look up, clapping and cheering. Eberhard, up on the castle tower, waves, wets his finger to test the wind, then plummets to his death. The crowd laugh and cheer)

MITZI
Can we get married now, Daddy?

OTTO
No, I’m afraid not, daughter, he wasn’t worthy of you.

Fr Dale:

RE: “Are you offering yourself as a companion or a sacrifice?”

Generally speaking they are one and the same.

[75] Posted by Sarah on 3-21-2010 at 05:40 PM · [top]

The former is the only thing that has allowed me to achieve Meanest Blogger In The Entire Universe—and given that title by universal acclamation by both revisionist and conservative Anglicans

I do believe that Matt Kennedy was given that title by acclamation of the Press Credentials Office at GENCON 2009.

carl

[76] Posted by carl on 3-21-2010 at 07:23 PM · [top]

I’m not sure how this thread got diverted onto issues of the Roman Catholic church. No doubt we will shortly be discussing the Lutherans and the Mennonites, which are just as relevant to Anglican issues…

Returning to the topic of ++Jensen’s post, it is a good practice to always read his pronouncements carefully.

I read his comment above as being directed at those who have “counselled patience” and “sought a change of heart” from the leadership of TEC, i.e. those who have tried to work with TEC or within TEC, in the hope that its leadership will repent.

I agree with Sarah at #29 that he is not calling on these people to leave TEC. If that is what he meant, he would say it plainly. Rather, he is calling on those who still counsel patience with TEC to do two things:

(a) to make it clear (i.e. public) that they are unambiguously opposed to the Glasspool election;

(b) to take “sufficient action” to separate themselves from those who agree with or condone the Glasspool election.

Whilst I can’t read ++Jensen’s mind, his comment seems consistent with the actions of those who have remained within TEC but taken steps to withdraw co-operation with its leadership, e.g. DioSC, and a number of parishes. However, it is also a warning to those who continue to work within TEC or with its leadership (e.g. on liturgical councils and commissions) to be careful to set clear boundaries, so that they are not quietly drawn into complicity with its apostasy. That’s my interpretation, anyway.

As for those wanting “action”, I am not sure what they are on about: Anglican primates, Roman Catholic popes and Orthodox patriarchs all tend to move with some deliberation and gravity. So does Metropolitan Jensen (yes, that is one of his titles!). That doesn’t mean they aren’t acting, and that doesn’t mean their words don’t mean anything. I suggest those who want “action” rent a Schwarzenegger movie.

And, DesertDavid is right: liturgical use of chasubles has been banned in Archdiocese of Sydney since 1911. It’s a long story: suffice to say that the diocese decided 100 years ago that it was going to draw a line against sacerdotal practice, and that was the point they chose, and its never been changed since. The anglo-catholic parishes in Sydney have learned to cope (no pun intended).

[77] Posted by MichaelA on 3-24-2010 at 01:27 AM · [top]

#77. MichaelA

(b) to take “sufficient action” to separate themselves from those who agree with or condone the Glasspool election.

What does the idea of “impaired communion” mean? At what point does degrees of separation simply become broken communion?

[78] Posted by Fr. Dale on 3-24-2010 at 07:30 AM · [top]

The AngloCatholic parishes of Sydney should rise up in rebellion and wear chasubles every day. If Jensen tries to do anything about it he will be the laughing-stock of the entire Anglican Communion.

[79] Posted by DesertDavid on 3-24-2010 at 08:10 AM · [top]

Fr Dale,

I’ll respond as best I can, however note that all my comments are just my interpretation of what ++Jensen meant. Even though I am probably sitting only a short distance from him as I write this, he doesn’t confide in me!

I *think* he is giving qualified endorsement to those who have remained within TEC whilst disagreeing with its leadership. The obvious example would be +Lawrence who has kept his diocese within TEC but disobeyed the wishes of its leadership and said in effect: “I am not leaving; If you don’t like what I am doing, then YOU throw ME out”.

But DioSC has publicly stated its disapproval of the Glasspool election, so ++Jensen’s warning would be redundant for them. Therefore, I think he probably has others in mind, dioceses and parishes who remain within TEC and wish to be orthodox but have not asserted their separation from TEC leadership as clearly as DioSC. I think ++Jensen is saying, in effect, “if you feel led to remain as a witness in that dark place, then make sure that you state clearly your position on the Glasspool election and keep yourself separated”.

[80] Posted by MichaelA on 3-24-2010 at 05:05 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.