February 28, 2017

June 13, 2011

[UK] Katharine Jefferts Schori ‘embellishes’ her CV to become the first female primate of the AC

I find it completely fascinating that this well-known issue with the Presiding Bishop’s CV has cropped up again, this time over at a UK blog.  You simply must read the blog and the comments—fun reading.

The fact that Katherine Jefferts Schori embellished her credentials was well-known and discussed copiously on blogs in 2006.  Two blogs that had a heap of fun with it—the old Classical Anglican Net News and T19 [back before it was at its current website address] don’t have the posts from 2006 up so we’ve lost those links—which were pretty fun.  But the news was distributed widely across blogland.

It was so commonly known that it was also referred to frequently in comments in blogland . . . by numerous and varied commenters.

Now—this issue is being [happily] publicized over on the wonderful Cranmer’s blog with a bit of new news—which is that the PB and her staff are *still* concerned enough over the mention of her being “Dean” of a “school of theology” on her CV to run around attempting to edit her wiki page.

That’s a truly enthralling tidbit of news to me.

But I still wonder why it is of interest *now*.  The truth is, folks, we all knew about the PB’s little issue with her CV—and it was clear that the liberals and revisionists currently in charge of TEC simply didn’t care about it.

So it’s a bit like folks trumpeting that Frank Griswold signed off on the 2003 emergency Primates meeting communique. 

Revisionist activists in TEC lie.

Nobody really cares about that—it’s expected and assumed. 

Don’t get me wrong—I’m glad it’s getting noticed again.  But I don’t see why that’s so.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts




First: this story is re-surfacing now specifically because of efforts at TEC church center to marginalize the issue in public information sources - the most prominent being the deletion of a paragraph about this election anomaly from Wikipedia, specifically done at the suggestion of +KJS herself.  This is sometimes known as “The Barbara Streisland Effect” - and it is most certainly a reason to re-visit the original issue.  More on the ‘why now’ issue.

Second: I don’t find the discussions you mention terribly “copious.”  At the time, Terry Ward was very concerned about this; he is the one who discovered the anomaly.  What you describe as “discussion” are mostly re-postings of questions he’d like to ask the Presiding Bishop in a comment he posted to Amy Wellborn’s blog - followed by quite a few snarky comments.

I’d suggest: that for an issue of very likely election fraud, this is really quite meagre discussion, at a very low level, amongst a few blog commenters.

It seems to me overly cynical to presuppose that Episcopalians and other Anglicans would not be concerned about this, or not wish to discuss it.  Given the very limited coverage involving “niche” sources - it is safe to assume that most Anglicans and Episcopalians are quite unaware of this.

If investigation at the provincial level is now impossible due to polarities and fear of Episcopalians regarding their future careers (likely the case, as it’s been five years without any investigation), there is always the possibility of an investigation at Communion level, with parties who aren’t beholden to The Episcopal Church in the pursuit of their careers.

Here is an article appealing to the sense of justice, which many Episcopalians should appreciate: Jefferts-Schori and Corvallisgate: Electoral justice is also a “justice issue.”  This points out how the current situation in TEC is not unlike that which faced Americans at the outbreak of the Watergate scandal - and is worth weathering, in asking the larger questions, for the sake of honest governance.

Finally: It’s true that the most strident TEC loyalists will have reason to wish to dodge this issue.  However, I think it says much about “orthodox Anglicans” that they assume it’s impossible to find ways of speaking to their “liberal” counterparts about this important issue.  Yes: we live in a torn, sickly church - but there are still commonalities amongst us that make it possible to speak, if we search for the truths we both still understand.  It is difficult, thankless work; it is frustrating and time-consuming; but this is what it means to live in a church like the one where God has put us.  Let us therefore be creative in using the gifts God has given us, rather than being so cynical as to assume that no “liberal” Episcopalians (or for that matter, other Anglicans) will care.

What’s perhaps most apt here, is that people from the Church of England have been addressing this question.  It might be too “hot a potato” for the Americans who usually discuss these things, with the great polarity that’s arisen.  But in the meantime, we in the Church of England need to discern how best to comport ourselves toward TEC, and also to reflect on what this yet uninvestigated anomaly in the election of a Communion Primate might mean for the credibility of leadership in general in the Communion.  And the other Provinces will need to ask themselves this same question.

Finally - this may well be the most significant instance of a likely election fraud in a major organization of the past decade or two - and probably the most significant for any church in the last half century or more.  So it’s a very promising field of research for anthropologists and historians of political culture.

So to merely summarize the issue as: “revisionists lie” - I would suggest that it’s this tendency itself, which might be preventing the issue from being more openly discussed in The United States.  If we’re writing in a manner that does less generalization about the parties concerned, and also opens the issue to its many fascinating aspects in shedding light on church governance and lay participation - we’re able to find ways that this truly amazing phenomenon is relevant to all members of the Anglican Communion.  (nota bene: I also think it’s even possible here that there was no conscious lie - but that the simple failure of those in the know, to alert others of the error - does implicate those in authority in electoral irresponsibility.)

[1] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-13-2011 at 08:22 AM · [top]

Dr. Schori is frequently referred to as a “Scientist” in the boilerplate backgrounds in MSM articles. Where are the published articles? This is similar to calling the POTUS a constitutional scholar. I have not been able to find even a posted abstract of her doctoral dissertation.

[2] Posted by Fr. Dale on 6-13-2011 at 08:28 AM · [top]

I should also add:

Additional reason for discussion is the discovery of two new pieces of evidence regarding the issue which were unavailable in 2006.  First, there’s the booklet itself put out by the Nominating Committee, found on TEC’s own site: Joint Nominating Committee booklet.  The whole booklet is interesting for this case, including the preface with its description of the work of the Nominating Committee.  This allows persons who were not at General Convention themselves to see the actual evidence of the misinformation first-hand, and judge for themselves.

The second bit of evidence is the discovery that the Nominating Committee spent $200,000 in its tasks of nominating and vetting candidates.  Presumably, “nominating” doesn’t cost a whole lot of money; and nearly all of this went into vetting.  This speaks further to responsibility of individuals involved, and makes it less likely that the misinformation was a simple “error.”  It also raises the question: “How much money is necessary in a polity like TEC to assure that bishops who provide short summaries of their lives, are being honest?”  It could be that factors exist which are so profoundly influencing church governance that even great sums spent on “vetting” no longer have the desired consequence of assuring honesty and integrity.  This may signify desirability of third parties to aid in church governance process until such a time as greater honesty and integrity are achievable.

[3] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-13-2011 at 08:52 AM · [top]

1.  j.m.c. said

If investigation at the provincial level is now impossible due to polarities and fear of Episcopalians regarding their future careers (likely the case, as it’s been five years without any investigation), there is always the possibility of an investigation at Communion level, with parties who aren’t beholden to The Episcopal Church in the pursuit of their careers.

Would not Canterbury squash any such investigation as interfering with the autonomy of TEC

2.  Regarding the vetting activities of the PB nominating committee:  One member of the PB nominating committee has said that he was unaware until after her election that Bp Schori had invited Bp Spong to lead a clergy conference in the diocese of Nevada.

[4] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 6-13-2011 at 09:19 AM · [top]

#4 Jill Woodliff - re. the nominating committee member unaware of the Spong visit - I would be beholden to you if you’d be able to somehow “document” that - is it anywhere on the net, can we find a name, can you maybe ask this person to make a statement you could put up somewhere?  Any evidence helps, but it’s less credible as evidence if we quote you here in this blog comment.  Names, etc. also help.

Re. 1 & RW: This probably depends on timing.  Were he asked now, he would probably quash.  If we are able to discuss this inside the Communion in a mature, respectful and befitting manner without too many generalizations and speaking of “groups” - e.g. avoid vocabulary like “the liberals are ...” etc., there will be much more reason to investigate, with a larger consensus aware of the many implications this general issue has for church authority and governance.

[5] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-13-2011 at 09:37 AM · [top]

In the US, this sort of CV embellishment is grounds for dismissal from any serious institution, but I understand in the UK such a deanship is considered the equivalent of a doctorate from Wadham College, Oxford.

[6] Posted by pendennis88 on 6-13-2011 at 09:54 AM · [top]

What amazed me about this story is that with all the attention it received 5 years ago (on this blog, among others), British conservatives are only just now learning about it. 
Of course, KJS assigning a staff member to clean up her resume online is hardly unexpected.  She removed all mention of her condoning communion without baptism and approval of gay marriage in Nevada when bishop there (in fact, ++Rowan reportedly called her successor to get him to tighten up the rules on gay marriage before inviting him to Lambeth). 
As to naming her “archbishop” it is (IMHO) only a matter of time- probably next GC.  Might be in the same resolution that will (if the HoBD listserve has its way) ban the use of the title “Father” in reference to a TEC priest.
One also wonders if she will not succeed herself as PB.  And don’t anyone spout up with “but the canons say….”- since when does what the canons say make any difference to KJS’ plans?

[7] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-13-2011 at 10:36 AM · [top]

Keep in mind that every bishop and several hundred priests who questioned this issue or similar issues, in the US were subsequently deposed. There are no active bishops or priests left in TEC who refuse to recognize KJS as the PB of TEC.  They even deposed quite a number of retired clergy. 
What next? Will British blogs discover that the bishops who “renounced their orders” like +Scriven and +Ackerman never actually renounced, and even wrote to say “I am not renouncing….”
PS- Sarah, thanks for posting this, things were starting to get kinda dull around my house.

[8] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-13-2011 at 10:48 AM · [top]

Hmmmm . . . JMC, I just don’t see it the way you do at all.

This CV embellishment was so roundly mocked and so well-known in blogland back in 2006 I don’t see how anyone on blogland could have missed it.  I’m more than willing to grant that folks who aren’t online would have missed it—but those who were on T19 and CANN were treated to all sorts of posts about it.  Baby Blue covered it in 2006 as well.  It was simply common online knowledge.

Do most Episcopalians know about it?  Well—most Episcopalians don’t even know the name of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, so their ignorance is nothing particularly new or special.  I’m certainly happy to stipulate that the vast majority of Episcopalians know practically *nothing* outside the concerns of their own individual local parishes.

RE: “two new pieces of evidence regarding the issue which were unavailable in 2006” . . .

I don’t see how the nominating booklet is a “new piece of evidence” . . . that was the booklet available back in 2006.

And this wasn’t a few “commenters”—it was most of the Anglican bloggers talking about the CV embellishment.

I heartily agree that the editing of the Wiki is important—as I said I find it simply enthralling that KJS is concerned enough about history to try to erase that part of her CV embellishment.  She’d rather it not go down in history, that much is clear.

RE: “I think it says much about “orthodox Anglicans” that they assume it’s impossible to find ways of speaking to their “liberal” counterparts about this important issue.”

Now see—I didn’t say “liberals”—I very specifically said revisionist activists.  There’s an important difference.

Sure I could talk face to face with lots of liberal Episcopalians of my acquaintance and go through all this.  They’d agree—“yes, that was probably not a great idea for her to do that—I can see how it would have been ‘misunderstood’—but hasn’t she been a marvelous Archbishop!!!???  Look at all the lovely things she has done—why, I saw her speak and she talked about how we were all really Jesus.”

And that would be that.

RE: ” . . . but there are still commonalities amongst us that make it possible to speak, if we search for the truths we both still understand.”

No, I’m afraid not.  Revisionists have a different gospel and antithetical values, principles, and foundational worldview.  We simply don’t share enough in common to have conversation about much in-depth or of substance.  I do enjoy good conversations, though, about movies and books and dogs and the outdoors and other more minor and surface matters with revisionists.

I certainly agree that those in the Church of England can ponder what all this means regarding the credibility of the current revisionist activists in leadership of TEC.  It certainly has been a long, slow learning process for those in the COE—as well as even the Global South Primates—and I expect that every single event or happenstance “adds to the learning,” so to speak.  That’s always a good thing and as I said earlier, I’m delighted that this is all being noticed there in the UK.

RE: “So to merely summarize the issue as: “revisionists lie” - I would suggest that it’s this tendency itself, which might be preventing the issue from being more openly discussed in The United States.”

Well, just to repeat—I said “revisionist activists lie”—and that’s solidly true.  They just do—it’s who they are and there’s not a whole lot we can do about that.

The situation has been openly discussed in the US and we all just recognized that it simply didn’t matter to revisionist activists.  These trivial things are simply not important when one has important victories to win for their agenda.

[9] Posted by Sarah on 6-13-2011 at 11:07 AM · [top]

WOW.  There’s even more to this story!!

Doing some Googling on this, I discovered that KJS has not only had her minions cleaning up her own biography, but also a Wiki entry on Charles Bennison.  OUCH. This has got to hurt to have this aired:

From here:

The church’s child abuse cover-up

Barbara Alton, assistant to Episcopal Bishop Charles Bennison, in America, deleted information concerning a cover-up of child sexual abuse, allegations that the Bishop misappropriated $11.6 million in trust funds, and evidence of other scandals. When challenged about this, Alton claims she was ordered to delete the information by Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori.

It might be worth digging in Wiki to see what other stuff this same user has edited at KJS’ behest?

[10] Posted by Karen B. on 6-13-2011 at 11:11 AM · [top]

#5, the source was personal conversation.  I purposely did not mention names because I did not seek permission to do so.  Knowing the committee member, it is certain that he would not agree to his name being quoted.

[11] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 6-13-2011 at 11:29 AM · [top]

A bit more reading and research reveals that KJS denied having anything to do with ordering the edits of the Wiki page on Charles Bennison.

ENS reported that denial in Aug 2007,

But oh how fascinating, that link has been REMOVED from ENS, but not from the web archives.  Read the archive news blurb about the Bennison Wiki editing matter here:


Ok, so if KJS did nothing wrong, why has this article vanished from ENS / Episcopal Life?

Presiding Bishop unaware of Wikipedia edit; allegations discredited
August 24, 2007
[Church Times] A suggestion that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori ordered the removal of information from the Wikipedia website has been discredited, according to a report by Simon Sarmiento in the U.K.-based Church Times newspaper.

The story, which originated on an American conservative website in May, resurfaced last Saturday in The Independent newspaper, which reported that Barbara Alton, personal assistant to Bishop Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania, “deleted information concerning a cover-up of child sexual abuse [by the bishop’s brother], allegations that the bishop misappropriated $11.6 million in trust funds, and evidence of other scandals. When challenged about this, Alton claims she was ordered to delete the information by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.”

Alton confirmed this week that she was acting on her own initiative as the bishop’s personal assistant, the Church Times reported. She had edited the bishop’s biography on the website, because of changes that others had made which she described as “a frightening mess,” according to the newspaper. She did not have the time to follow the Wikipedia process for correcting misinformation, however, and so had simply replaced it with the standard official text. This had led to her being banned by Wikipedia.

She had never received an order from Jefferts Schori, however, nor from anyone else at the Episcopal Church Center in New York City, the Church Times article reports. “Church officials in New York confirmed that the Presiding Bishop had never spoken to Barbara Alton.”

Very fishy.

[12] Posted by Karen B. on 6-13-2011 at 11:30 AM · [top]

Oops forgot to link a great blog article that details both the Wiki edits of KJS’ biography, and the Wiki edits of the details of Bennison’s child abuse cover up and how a key article has gone “missing” at ENS.

All the details here:

[13] Posted by Karen B. on 6-13-2011 at 11:59 AM · [top]

#4 Jill Woodliff - re. Spong and the Nominating Committee member that didn’t know about his prominent visit to +KJS’s diocese - fascinating.  I do think that it would be in the interest of the Communion to ask about the status of Trinitarian Christology in TEC, and this would be an important point.  If for nothing else than for the sake of historians who later ask, “When did TEC (or the Anglican Communion) depart from Trinitarian Christianity?”

On this point: I do know that in 2006 - I believe, before her installation in November - Dick Snyder wrote a book called Rhythm and Balance: Katharine Jefferts-Schori, published by Forward Publishing, only eight pages long.  In this book, he wrote something about how she was able to convince skeptics in her diocese that Bishop Spong was a pretty nice guy.  Or something like that (I saw this once on Google Books, but it’s no longer available for “preview”).  One would think that if in a mere 8 pages, this would come up - that it should have come up in the vetting as well.  The book is now on sale at Forward Publishing for ten cents - or perhaps someone can find it in a library.  If anyone can get their hands on it, an exact quote would be helpful.

[14] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-13-2011 at 12:55 PM · [top]

I’m happy to see one of my friends and also a former member from the same TEC parish, Craig Bernthal is still listed as an external link on the KJS Wiki page. http://victorhanson.com/articles/bernthal041708.html.

[15] Posted by Fr. Dale on 6-13-2011 at 01:23 PM · [top]

Doing a search of Google Books, I think I recall the Snyder book having quoted The Living Church (TLC) - it looks like it’s from Vol. 227, or probably the Sept. 29, 2003 issue p.10 (if anyone has this) which is where the Dick Snyder quote is from - he’s also been an author at TLC, having done a few articles on her.

He had just finished leading a clergy conference for the Diocese of Nevada.  In introducing Bishop Spong, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of Nevada, told the audience that some at the clergy conference, including those who had come expecting to argue with him, were converted by his pastoral presence, and the depth of his scholarship and his faith.  He received a standing ovation.  “Homosexuality,” Bishop Spong said,

That being as much as I care to piece together from Google Books.
TLC from 2003 is frustrating since their site only has bits & pieces from 2003 - no full issues - and TEC’s archive of TLC only goes up to 2000.  The 1995-2001 TLC digital Archive is a great place to do TEC research for these years, for any who don’t know it.

[16] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-13-2011 at 01:35 PM · [top]

Truthiness will out!

[17] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 6-13-2011 at 02:46 PM · [top]

Could this flurry of activity be related to the Presiding Bishop’s pending increase in power when the Title IV changes take effect on July 1, 2011?

[18] Posted by Publius on 6-13-2011 at 05:07 PM · [top]

The depth of Bp S’s scholarship has long amazed me, as well. Barely enough to get one’s little toe wet.

And anyone who would the PB a scholar or scientist would have to back that up with a CV. As for her being Dean of a School of Theology, I’d love to see how she would fare in a discussion about any aspect of theology with a bona fide academic like Dean Munday.

[19] Posted by Ralph on 6-13-2011 at 05:19 PM · [top]

She’s not fit to shine his shoes, and can in no way come close to him, theologically speaking.  They’re not in the same universe.

[20] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-13-2011 at 06:27 PM · [top]

18.  I dunno, Publius, but you just watch and see how many more clergy leave TEC.

[21] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-13-2011 at 06:29 PM · [top]

The dear Curmudgeon, in his own inimitable candour, notes that the Wikipedia deletion occurred only two weeks after Obama put Jefferts-Schori on his Faith Advisory Council.  A rather interesting coincidence.

#9 Sarah - yes, I was loose with my language and note you were speaking of “revisionist activists” ... my apologies, and blessings to you.

[22] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-13-2011 at 07:05 PM · [top]


The above link is to the actual deletion of the controversy from KJS’ Wikipedia page. Notice the edit comment given.


The above link is to the deletions made to Charles Bennison’s Wikipedia page. Notice again the edit comment.


The above link is to the discussion concerning this issue on JKS’ Wikipedia article talk page.

[23] Posted by ltwin on 6-13-2011 at 07:49 PM · [top]

Important question for further articles:

Has there been any incidence of very likely election fraud (investigated or not) of this scale in a church election of another church in recent history?

This may well be a unicum in church history & church governance in the past 50 years or so.  If anyone can help verify this, with similar cases - e.g., what it could be compared to.

[24] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-13-2011 at 08:21 PM · [top]

I haven’t heard of any, but this doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened.  In TEC’s case, apparently there weren’t many bishops who cared to ask for an investigation, and in fact, I believe there were some in collusion who ensured that nothing would be said.

[25] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-13-2011 at 08:34 PM · [top]

j.m.c. #1 - I am no fan of KJS but to set the record straight, she does have published scientific articles in marine biology. I found these four published under her maiden name: K Jefferts.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences. 44(6). 1987. 1261-1267.

Veliger. 28(2). 1985. 159-174.

Bulletin of the National Science Museum Series A (Zoology). 10(4). 1984. 165-194.
Bulletin of the National Science Museum Series A (Zoology). 10(3). 1984. 91-106.

[26] Posted by monika on 6-13-2011 at 08:53 PM · [top]

#26 monika - Thanks for that, that is good information to have.  It’s important that we are fair to +KJS.  I have seen it alleged that she was never a scientist (maybe in a comment above - note, I haven’t alleged this myself), so it’s good we can lay this rumor to rest with some good proof.  Thank you for doing your part in assuring fairness, it’s vital.

[27] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-13-2011 at 09:19 PM · [top]

It was alleged that there were irregularities in the election of Alexander VI

[28] Posted by Just a Baptist on 6-13-2011 at 09:42 PM · [top]

#26. Monika
Thanks for finding those articles and a mea maxima culpa from me. I disown my posting in #2 since it demonstrates my lack of investigative skills rather than her lack of published material. I’ve made the same claim elsewhere before also.

[29] Posted by Fr. Dale on 6-13-2011 at 10:26 PM · [top]

Let’s not give in to excess deference, OK? Credentials in the science arena are nice. The fact of the matter remains that as the leader of a Christian organization, she has been a dismal, abject failure. A complete menace. A disgrace.

[30] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 6-14-2011 at 01:33 AM · [top]

Hmmm, I think in 2006 the main place I blogged was on VOL. I vaguely recall the issue came up, which doesn’t mean it wasn’t regarded as important, just that there was so much going on then that it probably got swamped.

Whatever, I think it is very helpful that Sarah published this now, and that j.m.c., Jill, Fr. Dale and others are comparing notes. Relevant things do get forgotten, even over a short space of time, and we need to keep calling these things to each others’ attention.

And, just because it has been brushed aside by many people in the past, doesn’t mean that it won’t become not news at some point in future. Quite a few politicians have had that experience recently.

[31] Posted by MichaelA on 6-14-2011 at 04:23 AM · [top]

Sorry, “not news” should read “HOT news”!

[32] Posted by MichaelA on 6-14-2011 at 04:25 AM · [top]

My comment left on Cranmer:

Time and time again, when scandals have broken in the press, at the root of the hire of an unsuitable person, you find a failure to check their background, obtain proof of claims made, qualifications earned or to take up references.

It may initially seem harsh that CV ‘padding’ should result in rejection, even prosecution, and I have come across two cases of talented individuals thrown out of jobs or rejected for awards for ‘embelishing’ their qualifications or agrandising the school they went to.  I remember wondering why they would do it, because they certainly had earned the position or deserved the award through their own merits.

But as an army officer said to me, you have to be able to completely rely on those about you to be completely truthful in situations where you are in their hands.  That is an extreme situation, when lives may depend on complete truthfulness and the credibility of the person concerned.

The church is a place where lives can depend on truthfulness; in particular the Christian faith is nothing if it is not true.  As with the army,lives are at risk, and it is essential that priests and bishops are completely truthful.  It is also for a Christian one of the ten commandments that we do not bear false witness.  The devil is the ‘father of lies’.

Although dismissal or prosecution for such lying about background is indeed drastic, the reason why it is necessary to maintain an organisation’s integrity is because it shows dishonesty and a character fault.

The reason why it matters is because past conduct is a good indicator of future behaviour, as is all to evident in the subsequnt conduct of Presiding Bishop Schori.

[33] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 6-14-2011 at 05:44 AM · [top]

#30. Athanasius Returns,

Credentials in the science arena are nice

The problem I see even with a legitimate background in science is putting it in the foreground as the leader of a Christian Church. In fact, the actual strength of her resume is her weakness IF (as she has stated) she views Scripture through the lens of science (and not faith). There is also a difference between a “padded” resume and outright deception. I believe without a willingness to turn a blind eye to her razor thin background and credentials, she would not have become PB. And why is this? She, more than anyone else represented the blossoming TEC zeitgeist. The leadership of TEC knew who they were selecting and it had less to do with a resume and more to do with a person who was an incarnation of ideology.

[34] Posted by Fr. Dale on 6-14-2011 at 07:34 AM · [top]

Some mention of the PB’s scientific work has been made. As I posted in 2007:

The comments about Schori’s perspective on the environment from her background as an oceanographer may be a bit of a stretch. If you search Google Scholar for the work of “K Jefferts” you will see that the titles focus mostly on various aspects of commercially fished squid species - their life cycles, population densities, etc. To generalize from that highly specialized area of study to general environmental sustainability might be excessive extrapolation. However, since the article is all about spin, this does seem to fit within that style.

[35] Posted by Bill Cool on 6-14-2011 at 07:52 AM · [top]

without a willingness to turn a blind eye to her razor thin background and credentials, she would not have become PB

Precisely, Fr. Dale (#34). That zeitgeist is now a festering wound upon TEC.  If not excised, it WILL consume.  The proof of that is found everywhere…

ALL the wounders are culpable in the ensuing (pun completely intended!) travesty of Presiding Biahop Jefferts Schori’s supremacy.

[36] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 6-14-2011 at 07:57 AM · [top]

MCJ recently quoted one of her ‘sermons’

It’s a perfect example of revisionism - she’s using Christianity as a candy-coating and put in the pansexual agenda propaganda for the filling.  To the unthinking, uncatechized, Biblically unfamiliar, unregenerate mind without spiritual discernment, her message seems sweet, pleasant and goes down well - but it does not contain life, light or (real) love.  It is a deceptive, deadly counterfeit gospel.

[37] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-14-2011 at 08:10 AM · [top]

And she leads so many unsuspecting Christians astray!

[38] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-14-2011 at 08:55 AM · [top]

Or in other words, she sucker-punches them.

[39] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-14-2011 at 08:56 AM · [top]

I think it is ironic that we are discussing KJS when we should really be talking about Evelyn Underhill who has a feast day tomorrow. http://sanjoaquinsoundings.blogspot.com/.
It would be useful to do a comparison study of the feminism of Evelyn Underhill and KJS.

[40] Posted by Fr. Dale on 6-14-2011 at 01:18 PM · [top]

I should add -

I think that it is a mistake to view this issue as “about +KJS” or to frame it generally in terms of +KJS.

We are not, for example, certain that it was +KJS herself who placed this language in the election materials.  We have the $200,000 - spending Nominating Committee which may have well known “the truth” but for whatever of its own reasons, chose to use this language.  Or individuals on the Nominating Committee.  Yes, +KJS herself would have been aware, and thus has responsibility in not alerting GC and HOB of the error.  But for what we have now ... five years of no inquest ... I would say:

This speaks most loudly of the failure of honest and transparent process of governance within TEC, and of a terrible gap between TEC’s top leadership and its members.  This larger failure is, in my opinion, more significant than deficiencies of +KJS herself in this matter.

I would suggest that when we speak of this in the future, we sketch out the details, but spend more time on the broad issues of trust, church governance, and the general political ecosphere.  For us, the first questions should be:

“Why did we not do things differently?  How did we fail in raising these issues, and continuing to raise them, such as likely to bring notice - thus honestly doing our best to initiate positive change?  Why did we not, earlier on, seek support from other members of the Communion in bringing this issue to light, or in encouraging some sort of study of the matter?  Why did we abandon those TEC members ‘caught in the middle,’ neither revisionist activists nor readers of SF and VOL - without speaking to them lovingly about the importance of honest electoral process and the necessities of its preservation?”

I would suggest that if we would begin examining these things thoughtfully and prayerfully - that “the middle” would also begin to take notice, and that we do indeed care about them.  And that launching this discussion amongst ourselves might be the only honest and effective way of assuring that the issue eventually rises to attention elsewhere, where such attention is most sorely needed.

We must not be so cynical that we simply expect all Episcopalians or other Anglicans to believe that justice in governance is a non-issue, nor that very likely electoral fraud is trivial.  If we are, I would suggest that it may be our own stifling cynicism which prevents us from finding creative means of casting our nets broader, and enjoining others to think about and discuss these very pressing matters.

Here: Electoral justice is also a “justice issue” is an example of an article that deals with the election and the election only - not getting into questions of sexuality, theology, etc. etc.. - making it more understandable and readable for Anglicans who may disagree on issues of sexuality and theology.  Sexuality and theology of course are tremendously important; but if we are to succeed at speaking to Episcopalians and Anglicans who do do not share our views on these matters, we need to “pick our battles” and argue one thing at a time.  An Episcopalian who has difficulty understanding the relevance of the resurrection may well have understanding for governmental transparency (though I would prefer them to understand the resurrection while having an unethical view on government, of course).  Part of this is simple love: asking ourselves, “who am I speaking to?” when we write, or speak about these matters.

I’d suggest that the article linked here might make good reading for your Anglican friends who may be “on the fence” regarding issues which are infinitely more important than electoral ethics.  But as tragic as the misunderstandings are in the Communion on sex and Christology, we must shine our lights where we can - and if this is an area where we might illuminate our horrid shortcomings and sickness as a church body, this is most certainly a task which we must engage with seriousness.

[41] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-14-2011 at 02:39 PM · [top]

we must shine our lights where we can - and if this is an area where we might illuminate our horrid shortcomings and sickness as a church body, this is most certainly a task which we must engage with seriousness.

Absolutely, shine that light!

In the meantime.  Title IV revisions take effect in 16 days.  The horrid shortcomings and sickness up to now will be greatly enlarged then as those responsible for the current presiding bishop’s rise to power reap the whirlwind.

To this day I still wonder at the spineless maundering of the “Windsor bishops”.  Certainly, if any should have directly, vehemently, and vociferously challenged the juggernaut to apostasy, the ersatz election of the PB, and ALL that has followed so ably chronicled here (to which we owe all our SF blog sages/gurus a debt of gratitude!) - it assuredly ought to have been them. (Sorry for the thick prose in the last! Am quite tired.)

[42] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 6-14-2011 at 04:02 PM · [top]

KJS, your most holy oceanographer of obfuscation.

[43] Posted by gkissel on 6-15-2011 at 08:08 PM · [top]

Possible election fraud in bishop of Tanzanian Anglican Church - arrest warrant for Primate of TAC. Very likely election fraud for American Presiding Bishop - virtually no one notices. What does this say of western Anglican church governance? - A Tanzanian reaction to possible episcopal election fraud; and US / African comparison

[44] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-16-2011 at 12:06 PM · [top]

#40, after much work and effort, I have compiled a list of all the things that KJS and the Blessed Evelyn Underhill have in common;

[45] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 6-16-2011 at 09:36 PM · [top]

#45. Capt. Deacon Warren,

[46] Posted by Fr. Dale on 6-16-2011 at 09:43 PM · [top]

George Conger has an article on this in the Church of England Newspaper today here along with a picture of That Hat.

This issue is getting a good deal of exposure over here in the UK and presumably world-wide.

Again I am not sure why it is getting exposure now after such a long period after her election but possibly:
1. Because of the cover up she appears to have attempted to make [so often it is the cover up which catches people out rather than the original act]; and
2. The results of her tenure are starting to come in: overspend, dissipation of assets, scandal in the church, persecution of Christians, collapsing attendance and revenues and the general opprobrium TEC is held in worldwide.  One ignores the character faults which fibbing on a resume reveals at one’s peril.

[47] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 6-17-2011 at 07:44 AM · [top]

Good grief, The Hat.

I see it and my mind just short-circuits and then darkens to blank befuddlement.

[48] Posted by Sarah on 6-17-2011 at 08:34 AM · [top]

In all fairness to Mrs. Schori and whatever it is she thinks she’s the primate of, this isn’t a wide angle shot.

For all we know, she may have been attempting to preside over her version of “Children’s Church” at the time and just wanted to pass her headgear off as an exercise in Crayola creativity.

Then again, maybe the photographer needed to spare her supporters the sight of the little tykes getting up and walking out on her, even if they did think her miter was cool.

It can be so hard to tell about these things sometimes.  But let’s be charitable. LOL

[49] Posted by episcopalienated on 6-17-2011 at 08:51 AM · [top]

Conger’s article mentioned a conservative bishop’s voting for Schori as a strategy for ensuring the collapse of the ‘house of cards;’ an apt analogy of TEC, and as we’ve seen, this has pretty much come to pass.  It remains to be seen just how flat that collapsed house of cards will appear on the card table; spread all over, will it be rebuilt, or will those cards be swept away?  I predict the latter.

[50] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-17-2011 at 08:51 AM · [top]

The quote, “Following the election, four conservative bishops told CEN they had voted for Bishop Jefferts Schori as they wanted to precipitate a crisis and elect, from their perspective, the ‘worst possible candidate’” made me smile this AM.

I suspect that she has met or exceeded every expectation. The hat, and other vestments that she wears, would affirm that. Since it’s Royal Ascot week, perhaps she can get some new ideas from the photos. Or, perhaps the notorious hat worn by Princess Beatrice at the Royal Wedding might serve as the design model for a new type of miter.

God works through people on earth, as does the devil.

[51] Posted by Ralph on 6-17-2011 at 10:19 AM · [top]

The main reason why Parsley didn’t win is because most conservatives could not bring themselves to vote for such a sly, stabbing, Griswoldian-“moderate-pretense” candidate.  He would have been far far more disastrous than any of the other candidates simply because people would have taken several years to see what he was and what his agenda entailed.

With Schori, people knew what she was the instant she opened her mouth the very first time.  She didn’t have a rhetorically-false bone in her body, although since that first year her minders have certainly tried to teach her.  She hasn’t learned very well, fortunately.

Schori had a vote margin of much more than four bishops, too, so whichever conservative bishops’ votes ultimately did not matter.

The main issue was that the faux moderate candidate—Parsley—was simply impossible to vote for so it really came down to “which of these horribly revisionist candidates will be elected.”  The vast majority of conservative bishops voted for folks like Jenkins and the Duque Gomez guy—neither of which had a prayer’s chance of being elected since I think they both believe the Gospel.

[52] Posted by Sarah on 6-17-2011 at 10:41 AM · [top]

Many people, including me, were praying for clarity during the 2003 General Convention. We received:

1. The Convention defeated B-001.
2. The Convention approved Robinson’s election as a bishop.
3. Schori was elected Presiding Bishop.

One had better be careful what one prays for; one may get it. We got clarity all right, in spades! I agree with Sarah (# 52): electing Parsley or Sauls, etc. would have continued the Griswoldian double-speak. Schori had the integrity of saying plainly what she believes. I actually respect her for her honesty. I also reject the charge that conservative bishops somehow inflicted Schori on TEC. Even if a handful of conservatives voted for her, she had the support of a majority of the liberal bishops. Those liberal bishops who voted against her really don’t disagree with her on the merits, but prefer that they, and the PB, be less clear about their true beliefs.

[53] Posted by Publius on 6-17-2011 at 11:23 AM · [top]

When your whole platform and agenda are darkness and a lie against GOD, everything else will look less so by comparison.  On a pitch black canvas, charcoal gray looks like light.

Conversely, on a pure white canvas, even the barest change reveals whether what tint, blue, black, rose or gold has been added.  It’s important to be cognizant of Scripture so that you can recognize or discern a departure from it.  Traditional understanding, plain reason, science and reality, the orthodox preachers and teachers, all will generally be congruent with and confirm Scripture.

What does that say about the House of Bishops?  What does her election, their silence after Camp Allen, Lambeth, Jamaica, etc. say about them?

One has to wonder about the possibility of mutual blackmail or groupthink or group insanity.

In 2003, Ephraim Radner declared, “I am myself convinced that we are not really dealing simply with ‘error’ and ‘false teaching’ within ECUSA. Rather, we are dealing with something akin to madness.”

[54] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-17-2011 at 12:37 PM · [top]

Oh, my point in the previous post - A little fudging on her Resume’ isn’t that big a deal by comparison, when everything else you belive in and plan to accomplish is darkness and death.

[55] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-17-2011 at 12:39 PM · [top]

#53. Publius,

Schori had the integrity of saying plainly what she believes. I actually respect her for her honesty.

And what does she believe?

[56] Posted by Fr. Dale on 6-17-2011 at 12:49 PM · [top]

And in an environment where pluriform truth and the sanctity of opinions are the order of the day, why are we surpirsed that we have any problem with the bio? The variances are just another form of the same truth.

[57] Posted by Pb on 6-17-2011 at 12:51 PM · [top]

Fr Dale (#56), the Searcher of Hearts alone knows whether Schori is a Christian. I would infer, from her public statements, that she is not. I think that she likely believes in a Supreme Being, and that all religions simply try to describe the same deity. Aslan=Tash. She likely believss in universalism.

Don’t get me wrong: I disagree with everything she stands for.

Yet I will give her the vredit of her convictions: she doesn’t hide them, as do many TEC bishops (see, e.g. Parsley, Johnston, Sauls, etc. I give her credit for honestly saying what she believes. That is a sort of courage and integrity, which Parsley, Sauls, Johnston, etc. lack.

[58] Posted by Publius on 6-17-2011 at 09:44 PM · [top]

Fr. Dale: Sorry for the typos. In sum, Schori is a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Would you rather she pretend to be a sheep?

[59] Posted by Publius on 6-17-2011 at 09:49 PM · [top]

I don’t know what she believes and I think that even she is confused about what she believes. Perhaps she understands canon law but I don’t think she understands the creeds or church doctrine. As someone who claims to view scripture through the lens of a scientist, she is a materialist. Speaking of small boxes, science puts God is a rather small box.

[60] Posted by Fr. Dale on 6-17-2011 at 10:57 PM · [top]

Fr Dale, the only thing about canon law that KJS understands is how to sneak around it and manipulate it for her own ends.  As a theologian, she has no clue about the creeds and what they mean.  Everything she does is a sham.

[61] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-17-2011 at 11:49 PM · [top]

And Publius, she is a Unitarian Universalist in comic opera robes and pointy hat, and no true Christian.

[62] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-17-2011 at 11:52 PM · [top]

Never mind Episcopal insanity and deceptions, the world is about to become more insane.

[63] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-18-2011 at 06:57 AM · [top]

The Vatican is speaking out, but will the ABC or Shori?

No, because with the Continuing Indaba Project, they are promoting these deadly lifestyles and abortion in the name of health care and human rights along with the UN.  The truth is far from them.

[64] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-18-2011 at 08:08 AM · [top]

Well, Hooray for the Holy Father!  Well spoken!  Because of immorality which is being proclaimed on a grand scale as a result of unnatural sex acts between persons of the same sex, we are about to experience an explosive growth in AIDS and other preventable STDs. 

They’ve been given carte blanche by the UN, with predictable results.

They have sown the wind, and they are about to reap the whirlwind; God will see to that!

[65] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-18-2011 at 09:12 AM · [top]

Now I dare them to deny it!

[66] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-18-2011 at 07:27 PM · [top]

Dr. Peter Carrell, Director of Education and Director of Theology House in the Diocese of Christchurch, h Real Unclear Politics and the Anglican Communion.

[67] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-19-2011 at 11:27 AM · [top]

sorry - some keystroke submitted the form while I was typing. Dr. Carrell has weighed in with his own commentary and questions.

This too seems to be part of the unclearness of TEC if not also Communion politics. Was ++KJS elected with forward propulsion from a supporting resume which evidenced an exuberant confidence about skills and experiences? Or was a vetting process costing $200,000 curiously disinterested in checking the most basic of facts, facts which recently have been wiki-tidied up? Were the forces which elected her expressive of a concerted political effort to secure a political outcome as much as the election of a specific person? Are those forces still at work in the backrooms of TEC and the Communion?


[68] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-19-2011 at 11:30 AM · [top]

Publius, KJS was elected in 2006 not 2003.  Still 4 more years of her 9 year tenure to go…

[69] Posted by Karen B. on 6-19-2011 at 12:44 PM · [top]

If there were indeed forces behind her election, they were in the form of a cabal of liberal bishops and other clergy whose aim was twofold:  to ensure radical liberal revisionist control of TEC, including the permanence of feminist dominance, and the homosexual takeover of the Church.  Both have been largely accomplished.

[70] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-19-2011 at 04:13 PM · [top]

Very true, Cennydd.

But I do wonder if those liberal clergy and bishops really expected it to come to this. Even on their own beliefs and assumptions, the history of TEC over the last 5 years has been a debacle.

[71] Posted by MichaelA on 6-19-2011 at 05:22 PM · [top]

Still 4 more years of her 9 year tenure to go…

I’m tempted to put up a bottle of single malt that KJS succeeds herself as PB.  But then, there is probably a rule on SF barring gambling.  (Images of Claude Rains blowing his police whistle….)
It is difficult to see what would stop her.  In 2 weeks she will have all the authority she needs to depose any potential serious opponent prior to the election, and canon law has never had any meaning for her or her supporters on the Exec Council and in the HoB and the HoD.

[72] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-20-2011 at 07:07 AM · [top]

I suspect, TJ, that by then she will have used the new Canons to declare herself Great Leader, Guardian of the Properties and President Primate for Life; and of course there will probably be a rising stench of sulphur about.

[73] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 6-20-2011 at 08:29 AM · [top]


I think she is planning on decalring herself Emperor over the sea.

[74] Posted by jedinovice on 6-20-2011 at 08:54 AM · [top]

72.  TJ, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if KJS tries to have the canons amended so that a Presiding Bishop can succeed himself/herself.  That woman is absolutely hellbent on grabbing power, and she’s proven that she’ll do whatever it takes to get that power.

[75] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-20-2011 at 08:54 AM · [top]

I genuinely think Schori has Narcessitic personality disorder.

It explains the deliberate driving forward no matter how destructive.  Those with NPD love chaos!  It energises them.

[76] Posted by jedinovice on 6-20-2011 at 09:10 AM · [top]

While Williams just a despicable Quisling.

[77] Posted by jedinovice on 6-20-2011 at 09:11 AM · [top]

It is, of course, also possible that she will move to Wales for 6 months or whatever it takes to establish residency, so that she can become Archbishop of Canterbury- which she might as well be, since she clearly already dominates the standing committee, the ACO and the current holder of the See.

[78] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-20-2011 at 10:03 AM · [top]


Actually, I think she is just mad enough to try it.  And you are right in that she would probably be welcomed by the establishment.

[79] Posted by jedinovice on 6-20-2011 at 11:05 AM · [top]

In order to do that, though, she’d have to conform to British law, and I think the best she could do would be to obtain a permit to work in Britain.  That can be very hard to get.

[80] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-20-2011 at 11:46 AM · [top]

If she became Abp of C, that could make the Tiber look a little more attractive.

[81] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 6-20-2011 at 12:03 PM · [top]

The Tiber? Constantinople, perhaps. Or, ACNA.

[82] Posted by Ralph on 6-20-2011 at 12:33 PM · [top]

#81 Capt. Deacon Warren

that could make the Tiber look a little more attractive

Well, here in the UK, yet another case of child abuse by priests, and cover up by the RC church post the Pope’s visit has broken this week in the case of the high profile Fr Kit Cunningham and several priests of the Rosminian Order.  This abuse has taken place in boarding schools run by the Order in Leicester and in Soni, Tanzania - see ‘He was my priest and my friend. Then I found out he was a paedophile’ by Peter Stanford a Catholic journalist who wrote Fr Cunningham’s obituary, [he previously covered the Pope’s visit] and was then contacted by one of the victims.  There is more information 33 minutes into the BBC ‘Sunday Program’here

Same old story - a priest accused of child abuse in Leicester was quickly posted off to Africa where he and others continued to abuse boys in their care.  Notwithstanding the Pope’s protestations to the contrary, this is still, even now, being treated by the RC Church with denial of liability, cover up, and a failure to tackle the issue.

The claim that the Roman Catholic Church is an attractive alternative to the Anglican Church being put forward by some Roman Catholics is just ignoring the manifest failings and even now the failure to get to grips with the issues of that church, notwithstanding the collapse of support for it in Ireland and in Europe and more scandals in the last year in England.  I am afraid the Tiber continues to be extremely murky - the RC Church is manifestly failing to clean up its act.  All the claims to be the ‘one true church’ or all the other inflated claims crash when one just looks at how it continues to carry on.

No, these are Anglican problems in our church, and they require Anglican solutions to them - not lures cast out from the far bank of what appears to be a rather smelly and unhealthy Tiber.

[83] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 6-20-2011 at 12:41 PM · [top]

PM- Remember that, in the US, the “Anglican solution” would be to make the guilty party’s brother a bishop.

[84] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-20-2011 at 02:24 PM · [top]

#84 TJ, it is somewhat to the credit of the current administration that they did try to do something about it, but they ran up against the problem that they had taken so long fiddle-faddling over it that their proposed action was time-barred.

[85] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 6-20-2011 at 02:27 PM · [top]

PM- Had the current administration actually wanted to do something, all it had to do was accept the renunciation of orders by the bishop of PA.  Since it is well established (accepted by the Archbishop of Canterbury) that you can accept the renunciation of orders of a bishop who has not renounced his orders, and since it has happened in at least a 1/2 dozen cases in the last several years, there is absolutely no excuse for the current bishop of PA to be holding his see, other than that the current administration of TEC is just as happy to have him there.

Although, I suppose he may be on the July 5th list (one assumes KJS will allow the staff at 815 to enjoy the long holiday weekend rather than sending out the list on the 1st).  He has proven to be a minor embarrassment.

[86] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-20-2011 at 02:35 PM · [top]

I entirely understand the comments about KJS. I think we also have to keep in mind the very good point made by Cennydd at #70 - KJS only succeeds so easily because there is “a cabal of liberal bishops and other clergy” in TEC who find her favourable.

[87] Posted by MichaelA on 6-20-2011 at 05:07 PM · [top]

Sooner or later, TEC’s pewsitters….or at least those who really care about the long-term survival of their Church….are going to have to make the decision to oust their leadership and demand a return to the positions and tradition that their Church held for nearly 200 years….or they will have to admit that it is a lost cause.  Will there be such people who will risk everything to do this, or will they simply fade away into the background?  One cannot help but wonder.

[88] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-20-2011 at 07:40 PM · [top]

I’ve personally witnessed KJS leading a guided meditation on the baptism of Jesus, having the room meditate on “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Several in the room realized what she was up to and resisted the spell. Some others later voiced what it was like to “be” Jesus for a moment. I suspect she’s done something like that on the other Primates.

As for Fr Cunningham…well…just another predatory homosexual Roman Catholic priest. Yawn. One wonders what progress Rome has made in purging its feminaries of their homosexual subculture - among faculty and students. They were going to clean house, as it were. I wonder whether that’s actually happened, and to what extent the persecution of heterosexual seminarians has continued. Those who swim the Tiber had better watch out for their sons.

The fact that the diabolic disorientation of the church hierarchy has also reached Anglicanism shows that the devil also sees us as a threat. Indeed, PM, Anglican problems require Anglican solutions. Perhaps Our Lady will intervene to keep KJS from reaching the rank of Popess.

[89] Posted by Ralph on 6-20-2011 at 07:43 PM · [top]

The threat from the Devil is very real, of course, and it has manifested itself in the persons of the TEC hierarchy, and that is an undeniable fact.

[90] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-20-2011 at 09:34 PM · [top]


the case of the high profile Fr Kit Cunningham and several priests of the Rosminian Order.

I just watched the documentary on the BBC. Here.

It’s nauseating that David Myers could be the Chief Celebrant at Cunningham’s memorial, whilst knowing for a fact that Cunningham was a paedophile.

But I also find nauseating the idea that Cunningham, having escaped worldly justice for his crimes, for which he should have spent years in prison, and having presumably confessed his sins and been forgiven, is now happily in heaven.


As for Fr Cunningham…well…just another predatory homosexual Roman Catholic priest.

I’ve noticed on this forum that people keep conflating ‘homosexual’ and ‘paedophile’. And this is a good example of it.

The seriousness of Cunningham’s crime doesn’t lie in the gender of his victims; it lies in the fact that he abused his position as a priest and as a teacher and sexually assaulted children. The crime is paedophile behaviour - not homosexual behaviour.

[91] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-21-2011 at 07:23 PM · [top]

“]Homosexual behavior, orientation and identification [/url] are symptoms of trauma, distress, rebellion, deception and contradict Scripture, human design and the Image of God and for this or any other unbiblical lifestyle there is no affirmation or exclusion.

I’m so sorry, Gnu Ordure.  We are all in the same boat and repentance and doing life God’s way is always best.

[92] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-21-2011 at 07:42 PM · [top]

Actually, repentance and doing things God’s way is the only way of life, freedom, peace and joy.

[93] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-21-2011 at 07:45 PM · [top]

I wish the program could air here.  The guy had so many people fooled.  The response by his order is indefensible and I hope Fr. Myers comes to his senses and does the right thing.  It is a shameful thing and at the very least the victims deserve compensation for their suffering.

I entirely agree with Damian Thompson’s post on the matter.

[94] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 6-21-2011 at 09:55 PM · [top]

I beleve Cunningham was a true pedophile based on the age of his victims.  From what I understand dividing true pedophiles into hetero or homosexual is not always clear cut since the fact they are attracted to prepubescent children means that sexual charaterstics are not necessarily part of their attraction to them.  So this truly was probably a case of boys being available. 

I do believe if he sincerly repented and sought forgiveness then yes some day he will enjoy the Beatific Vision.  It is hard to accept this at times.  But then I remember that without the Redemption and Salvation of Christ heaven would be barred to me. 

The case also serves as a warning of how well pedophiles have learned to mask themselves.

[95] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 6-21-2011 at 10:02 PM · [top]

Ick…The Anglican Communion News service is now referring Ms Schori as “the Episcopal Church Primate.

[96] Posted by robroy on 6-22-2011 at 03:33 PM · [top]

An unfortunate appellation.

[97] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-22-2011 at 05:10 PM · [top]


From what I understand dividing true pedophiles into hetero or homosexual is not always clear cut since the fact they are attracted to prepubescent children means that sexual charaterstics are not necessarily part of their attraction to them.

I agree, Paula.

If we defined straight to mean attracted to adults of the opposite sex, and gay as attracted to adults of the same sex,  then true paedophiles (those attracted to pre-pubescent children) don’t qualify as either straight or gay.

Which would explain why true paedophiles (who are 90% male) engage in same sex abuse as often as opposite sex abuse; they don’t care about the sex of their victim.

The situation is more complicated in the case of hebephiles, of course.


[98] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-22-2011 at 06:09 PM · [top]

they don’t care about the sex of their victim.

That’s a bit hard to reconcile with the wikipedia account: “Other pupils recall being photographed naked, hauled out of bed at night to have their genitals fondled and other sexual abuse”

How can you possibly say they didn’t care about the sex of their victims when that was the object of their abuse?

There is also another aspect: although not all people abused turn to the homosexual lifestyle, it seems most homosexuals are that way because they were abused in their childhood. Look at Ted Haggard or Ellen Degeneres for two high profile examples. I suspect that if penalties were a bit stricter for pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles or however you want to label it, that there would be no gay rights movement because there would be almost none.

You’d have to go in search of another cause to champion. It seems to be a self sustaining cycle of evil.

[99] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 6-23-2011 at 11:44 AM · [top]

And why do you accept this disorder as a given? To me, it makes far more sense to say, it is a result of our fallen condition, along with adultery, violence, alcohol and drug addition, incest, theft, etc. I think in this case it could be almost eliminated if the abuse were eliminated. Dr. Scott Lively has an interesting e-book (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/index.html) which shows how the leaders of the gay rights movement were all themselves victims of molestation. I think that is very revealing.

[100] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 6-23-2011 at 11:57 AM · [top]

they don’t care about the sex of their victim.

That’s a bit hard to reconcile with the wikipedia account: “Other pupils recall being photographed naked, hauled out of bed at night to have their genitals fondled and other sexual abuse” . How can you possibly say they didn’t care about the sex of their victims when that was the object of their abuse?

You’ve misinterpreted my comment, SpongJohn. Let me re-phrase it: they don’t care whether their victims are boys or girls.

To be honest, some paedophiles do exclusively target one gender or another; but I think a large proprtion target either sex, depending on availability. But I can’t find any solid figures on this, so I may be wrong.

But if you have a quick scroll through the wiki article on paedophilia, you’ll see that it hardly mentions heterosexuality or homosexuality; it defines and discusses paedophilia (as does DSM-IV) as sexual attraction to children.

There is also another aspect: although not all people abused turn to the homosexual lifestyle, it seems most homosexuals are that way because they were abused in their childhood.

Nobody knows what the exact causes of homosexuality are; even people such as Exodus International admit this:

Is there any male out there who has struggled with unwanted same-sex attractions who has not wondered, “How did this become a part of me?” Didn’t think so.  Indeed, that question haunted me for years and years. Let me immediately give you the answer you have longed to learn:  no one knows! There … are you satisfied?  Didn’t think so.

Unfortunately, that is the answer.  Despite centuries of attempts to learn, neither the Bible nor science has given the individual man his answer.  Thus, whenever you hear a counselor or researcher or pastor pronounce with certainty as to what causes homosexuality – beware.  Oh sure, there are a lot of theories that claim to know the answer.  They don’t.

But sexual abuse does not appear to be a factor. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 2004:

there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.

So you’re wrong on this point.

Look at Ted Haggard or Ellen Degeneres for two high profile examples.

I looked; DeGeneres was abused by her stepfather at the age of 16 or 17. But she says that at that time she was already aware of her attraction to women:

“People I’ve confided in about this before say, ‘Oh, that’s why you’re a lesbian,’ ” said DeGeneres. “But I was a lesbian way before that. My earliest memories are of being a lesbian.”

So she is not an example of abuse causing homosexuality.

I suspect that if penalties were a bit stricter for pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles or however you want to label it, that there would be no gay rights movement because there would be almost none.

See above. Homosexuality isn’t caused by sexual abuse. Even the book you mention agrees. He says:

There are many adult survivors of such attacks who never adopt a homosexual lifestyle. However, the percentages of those who have is quite high. <Snip> :”This study of 1,001 adult homosexual and bisexual men found that 37% reported they had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact with an older or more powerful partner before age 19”.

ie 63% of this sample weren’t abused, but still became gay/bisexual. So eliminating paedophiles wouldn’t eliminate homosexuality.

[101] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-23-2011 at 04:53 PM · [top]


There is not really much I have to say about this, all one needs to do is quote (I almost can’t believe it myself) Andrew Gern’s story in the Lead:
”  Parry said he first opened up about his sexual misconduct last fall, when a Seattle area man named Pat Marker showed up at his doorstep. Marker, a sex abuse victim who had attended St. John’s Preparatory School in Minnesota, had learned about Parry while researching other cases from St. John’s.

  “I confronted Bede with the allegations … that took place at St. John’s, and he admitted to the misconduct and expressed remorse but did not disclose any information about the (Conception Abbey) boys choir at that time,” Marker said. “After learning he directed the choir, I confronted him again. At first he denied anything but later admitted to misconduct.”

When he sought ordination in the Episcopal Church, he told the truth about the 1987 incident but did not disclose the other incidents. The diocesan bishop at the time was now Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.”

[102] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-24-2011 at 07:24 PM · [top]

At first, just another story about an aging predatory homosexual Roman Catholic priest confronted by one of the young men that he abused. But with a twist. To me this is more serious than the incident with her CV.

I talked to the bishop, and she accepted me. And I told her at the time that there was an incident of sexual misconduct at Conception Abbey in ’87. The Episcopal Church doesn’t have a ‘one strike and you’re out’ policy, so it didn’t seem like I was any particular threat. She said she’d have to check the canons, and she did.”

So, KJS checking the canons? Imagine that! I wonder what they said back then. Everyone headed to ordination to the priesthood has to have psychological and psychiatric evaluations, as well as a background check, but I don’t off-hand know whether that applied to folks transferring from the Roman Catholic Church.

Not “any particular threat”? As I read it, it looks like all the incidents took place before the transfer to TEC. It could be that KJS recognized a repentant sinner, and that there have been no more incidents, and that this fellow has lived a Godly life. I certainly wouldn’t have taken the chance. I await hearing from her about her thought process at the time.

More from the newspaper article: “In 2000, the lawsuit says, Parry underwent psychological testing because he was considering entering another Catholic monastery. ‘The results of this testing revealed that Fr. Parry was a sexual abuser who had the proclivity to reoffend with minors,’ the lawsuit says. The results were provided to Conception Abbey, the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas and the Episcopal bishop for the Diocese of Nevada, the lawsuit says.”

Oh, my.

The newspaper article states, “He said he has not had inappropriate sexual relations since the 1987 incident.” One must wonder what the term ‘inappropriate’ means.

If can be shown that he continued his homosexual paedophilia (or whatever the ‘correct” term is for that age group) after transfer to TEC, KJS is in very hot water indeed.

Finally, a gem from the newspaper article: “A spokeswoman at the Episcopal Church’s national office said Thursday that “we do not comment on lawsuits or allegations.” (Unless, of course, they have to do with church property or conservative clergy.)

[103] Posted by Ralph on 6-24-2011 at 08:12 PM · [top]

And, there’s more here.

Barbara Blaine, president and founder of the Chicago-based watchdog Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, was at All Saints’ Episcopal Church on Thursday to call attention to the lawsuit and Parry’s past. The Washington Avenue church has some 500 members.

“The reason that this is so horrific is that the Episcopal Church authorities knew about Father Parry’s history, and yet they still allowed him to come and work here,” she said.

Spin doctor needed STAT at 815 Second Avenue!

[104] Posted by Ralph on 6-24-2011 at 08:28 PM · [top]

Comments and insights regarding this horrendous sequence of events continue to accumulate.

Among the comments, note well a comment by one Paul Marshall before it gets removed on direction from 815 lawyers.

The story is being picked up by other US blogs and news media. A matter of time before it hits the UK, and beyond.

Accountability please, Mrs. Schori.

[105] Posted by Ralph on 6-26-2011 at 02:12 PM · [top]

A lax screener only serves the purposes of those who run an apostate Church, and in the end, that Church is the agent of its own demise.  Mrs Schori must be immediately held accountable for her failure to act, for any delay will only further ensure its self-destruction.

[106] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-26-2011 at 04:33 PM · [top]

As I see it, though, the problem is one of who within TEC will hold her accountable?  The bishops?  Nope!  The priests?  Nope!  The deacons?  Nope!  The de-sensitized laity?  Nope!  No, I think it will have to be the rest of us.  And how do we do that?

[107] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-26-2011 at 08:51 PM · [top]

Our goo Welsh friend asks, “And how do we do that?”

A nice article in Church Times, perhaps. A followup to the article about the CV embellishment.


[108] Posted by Ralph on 6-27-2011 at 07:03 AM · [top]

Ummm, that would be “good.”

[109] Posted by Ralph on 6-27-2011 at 07:03 AM · [top]

Yes, I do think it would be good if she were exposed for the charlatan that she is, and if it takes an article in Church Times in order to do that, then let’s go for it!  How about it, Pageantmaster?  What do you you say?

[110] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-27-2011 at 08:46 AM · [top]

#110 I regret to disappoint you and Ralph, but I am not the editor of the Church Times.

But I do think that something seems to have gone very wrong in the recruitment of Fr Parry, and it would be good if the PB were to answer the question.

Pray for the people of All Saints, and that their children have been safe.

[111] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 6-27-2011 at 09:09 AM · [top]

Ah, Pageantmaster. I really don’t know who you are. You could be commenting from a prison cell in Topeka, for all I know. But, one suspects that you have connexions in high places. And I have the highest respect for someone with the intellectual prowess to name the Bishop of Massachusetts, the Tangerine Queen.

Thus, I’m hardly disappointed in you. The CoE came late to the controversy about the embellished CV. That need not happen again. Accountability, please.

[112] Posted by Ralph on 6-27-2011 at 11:04 AM · [top]

The CoE came late to the controversy about the embellished CV. That need not happen again. Accountability, please.
- a very insightful comment by Ralph

One very big problem we all have here:

We are very good in following the Social Media Cue of the 3-day cycle of blog/twitter “relevance” - but we are painfully lost when it comes to preservation of information, and events that should have “relevance” for more than three days.

That is - we have no sense of “history” - not even immediate history.

We’re also bad at things like bringing up older issues for commentary on newer issues - or “connecting the dots” compellingly when it comes to, e.g., problems of honesty in the Anglican Communion.

My academic background is in philosophy, and my occupational background is in web development.  So I am particularly good at thinking about information architecture.

From an information architectural standpoint: Anglicans are thoroughly in need of developing a web resource which is not “bloggy” and “newsy.”  We need something more encyclopedic and history-oriented (including the history of the last few months) in character - one which isn’t striving to be “relevant” regarding the last 3 days of events and discussions.

I think that what would be ideal here is a Wiki-type platform (preferably MediaWiki - as other wikis such as Wikia can’t be moved around or customized - we need something which allows us access to the database, and which we can customize if we want).

We need good articles that we can link to in blog articles and blog comments, where issues are presented in a clear, thorough manner, with hyperlinks to details, proof, further commentary, etc. etc..

This, obviously, is not a task for one person - even “full time.”  It needs to be done by a host of reliable persons who are willing to do research and produce quality writing.

It would be a much better time occupation in many cases than the posting of snarky comments on SF, or the phenomenon of 15 conservative Anglican blogs giving their 2 cents worth on today’s scandalous event.

By consistently linking to important postings, these also would begin to show up prominently in search engine results, thus assuring that many, many others outside of the “conservative Anglican” world would find them - I would be very happy to advise on this matter.

We have to think about educating CofE Anglicans.  And we also have to think about educating all the other Anglicans outside of the U.S. who are beginning to realize that something’s rotten in Denmark.  And we have to think about educating all the Global South Anglicans who are only beginning to hop into the wacko world of the IntarWeb and still don’t know enough of concrete matters in the Anglican world to engage in effective dialogue on detailed issues.

For all of these cases, a Wiki-like source would be helpful - with a basic “timeline” of the Anglican crisis ... various facts regarding +KJS, her Christology, the election, her track-record in honesty ... other basic problems in TEC summarized, then linked to more detailed and documented analyses of each individual issue.

This should also cover “complaints of the left” dealt with fairly and honestly: first we need to do some canvassing and ask: “What are the top grievances - other than the ‘anti-gay / anti-woman’ ‘narrow-minded’ type stuff one hears?” What are the top complaints which one should expect anyone not abiding by the same ideological / theological point of view should be able to understand?

I would imagine these would be: The Chapman Brief and the Barfoot Memorandum.  But this isn’t for us to answer.  It’s for TEC loyalists to answer and for us to sift through, finding the most frequent complaints.  And we will need to be open and honest with these as well, without hiding or obfuscating.

[113] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-27-2011 at 12:12 PM · [top]

#112 Ralph

Ah, Pageantmaster. I really don’t know who you are. You could be commenting from a prison cell in Topeka, for all I know.

Possible, but not true in my case.

But, one suspects that you have connexions in high places.

The highest, Ralph, as do you: 1 John 2:1

The CoE came late to the controversy about the embellished CV. That need not happen again. Accountability, please.

This is however, a matter for TEC, and how serious they are about child protection and accountability.  Not impressive performance so far, and it appears a culture of sweeping such things under the carpet which goes right to 815, and if Bishop Marshall is correct, comes from it.

All very stinky.

[114] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 6-27-2011 at 12:43 PM · [top]

I have seen nothing which indicates in any way that TEC is going to take action to investigate this CV situation or discipline anyone for their role in it.  They will sweep it under the rug….as usual.  They simply view it as a matter of no importance.

[115] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-27-2011 at 02:06 PM · [top]

cennydd13 #115: It’s important that we not wish for, or insist upon, too much.  I think it is much more reasonable:

- to point out that it’s important for Episcopalians and Anglicans to become comfortable about talking about the election incident - and to stop the “it’s not an issue and you are a meanie!” type response, or the “[xyz type person] lie, get over it” type response.  As long as we’re polarized in that way, few will come even to learn about this issue.  But we do need to strongly advocate losing toxic and negationist attitudes, and warmly discourage discussion about what this means for us as a wider Communion.

- we can point out that an investigation would be desirable; but it’s for TEC itself to decide what it wants to do.  It may be “safer” that if there ever is a Communion-level investigation into TEC polity, and how this came to happen ... that it’s explicitly conducted with the understanding that there will be no recommendations regarding disciplinary matters; and it’s up to TEC either to decide on this, or let those who are implicated decide for themselves about what they are to do.

[116] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-27-2011 at 02:20 PM · [top]

And you can be sure that they will do nothing.  And in light of this, and now that it’s been made public, how can TEC expect to attract the unsuspecting and unknowing unchurched, as they so loudly proclaim that they’re doing?  Yes, we should talk about it, but it must not be minimized or trivialized.  It must be accentuated….even at KJS’s discomfort and embarrassment.

[117] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-27-2011 at 02:54 PM · [top]

cennydd13 - well, until there’s some kind of Communion-level investigation (TEC has pretty much shown its polity isn’t capable of such a thing by waiting five years), it’s very legitimate to bring this up whenever:

- an Episcopalian makes a call for justice somewhere outside of TEC itself (electoral justice is also a “justice issue,” and this is a major sign of likely political corruption)
- an Episcopalian brings up the theme of justice in the abstract, not calling for a specific justice issue within TEC itself
- +KJS visits a province outside of TEC
- a high-ranking Episcopalian visits a province outside of TEC
- there’s a Communion-level meeting in which Episcopalians are expected to provide a voice - e.g., seated as members

In the case of visits of +KJS, it may even make sense to alert local media of the area where she’s visiting of these important pending issues.  Or mail Anglicans in the area, encouraging them to distribute flyers and talk to their own local media.  This will allow the local media to provide some “color” and “drama” to an otherwise boring story.

We have to be careful, though, if we do this: that we also continue, as much as we can, to shine a light upon the problems with her Christology.  If this is not our issue #1 - then there is definitely something wrong with us.

[118] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-27-2011 at 03:05 PM · [top]

By the way, I also don’t want to appear here as if I’m criticizing Sarah or others in calling for a milder tone when addressing others on this issue.  Sarah and others have justifiable reasons for believing that lies have been told.  They also have justifiable reasons for cynicism with regard to possibilities.  However, we - I mean the larger we who cherish Christ and don’t wish to see Him denied from the church’s pulpit - have been wrong in not working well as a body.  The body needs to function well with all of its members.

I think there’s possible movement within the Communion on this issue, and that it’s important for my fellow Church of England Anglicans to know about, and other Anglicans as well.  Knowing about this will help us address the communion’s ills and our larger problems with polity.  We who are Trinitarian Christians have somehow failed in our task at diligently bringing this to the attention of those who need to know, and discussing this in areas outside of SF and other rather conservative blogs; we’ve been stuck in little conversations within ourselves, instead of trying to engage the larger Communion.  This is our failure, perhaps due to pervasive cynicism amongst ourselves, stunting our creativity, our will to speak out, and our boldness in reaching out to others in love with information which is difficult to hear.  But people need to know; and when they hear this, they tend to realize that this is something that more people need to know.  It speaks to our inability as a Communion to engage in the most simple acts of accountability in church governance.  And we are all at fault here - not just “the liberals.”

I think also that it helps pointing out where we are all at fault - and trying to avoid pointing fingers at specific groups, unless we have specific evidence (especially evidence which is truly actionable).

And finally - I’d like to thank Sarah and SF in general for the tiresome, daily, dedicated, wonderful work that they do in shining a light on a very, very dark place.

But back to the body and its members.  I have hope that other Anglicans can hear this message, and that this will help bring clarity to the Communion about our ills.  Sarah may not.  But I can point to this very cynicism and conviction that things are at an utter standstill amongst some, in order to point out the general sickness in polity within TEC - that the division is so great that this, which normally should have been researched and investigated a long time ago, has become generally indiscutable and like a “black hole” of discourse.  That a healthy polity would have found ways of comfortably discussing this issue without fear.  That in a healthy polity, the “left” would have surely made some kind of cogent case for non-investigation, if one could be made, and not left the discussion of this issue up to people on the “right” and a few who are completely outside the U.S. Anglican scene.

And that this alone warrants discussion, as to how we got here, and why we are so sick.  And what this sick polity’s consequences will likely be, especially with various parties hinting that The Episcopal Church has a great deal of control over the Anglican Consultative Council.  I think it means: if we remain silent about our odd and diseased polity - we are surely doomed to a polity of cynicism, obfuscation, and deceit - in which tyrants flourish.

I hope in the future that those of us who think: “this is really going to get nowhere” and those of us who think: “the Communion may still be able to be saved; and there exist Anglicans who do care about honesty etc.” are able to work together fruitfully.  I most certainly need the hard work done by Sarah and others; this has been of such utter importance in shining a light on the Communion, that its worth can hardly even be estimated.

[119] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-27-2011 at 04:26 PM · [top]

I wonder what would prompt a person to resign from the parish, and to resign from Holy Orders. On the liberal scale, Nevada is right up there. In such a diocese, I should think that a few episodes of homosexual ephebophilic practice so many years ago should be a cause for celebration. Since this is an issue of homosexual practice (which has boundaries different from those of heterosexual practice) would he be seen as a predator - or as merely helping young men find their true selves?

On the one hand, with the recent revelations, a man of God could have had a true metanoia and sought forgiveness for past misdeeds. And the resignations would be public signs of contrition.

On the other hand, many wonder whether there might have been ‘something going on’ recently that the parish, DioNV, and 815 might have hoped could be swept under the rug. Perhaps there might be legal agreements among any parties involved.

I pray that it’s the former. That kind of repentance can, and certainly does, happen. To say that it cannot would be to put God into an Awfully Small Box™. Likewise, I pray that there aren’t damaged bodies, minds, and souls at this parish - as a direct consequence of apparent failure of due diligence by DioNV (and the parish in hiring him) so many years ago.

If the latter, then the truth will come out.

#114. If not Topeka, then perhaps Wandsworth? grin

[120] Posted by Ralph on 6-27-2011 at 06:37 PM · [top]

If you’ll forgive an outsider’s opinion, it seems to me that your PB should be elected by your Church members, not by the General Convention (who are themselves unelected, if I understand correctly). More democracy, in other words.  (And you could do with some mechanism to initiate a vote of ‘no confidence’).

Though that would imply that the ABC and the Pope should also be directly elected…

Hypothetical questiom: at the time PB Schori was appointed, would she have won in a direct election? ie does she have a mandate to do what she does? 

Real question: would someone please briefly explain what “815 lawyers” are? Or what 815 signifies? Thanks.

[121] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-27-2011 at 07:16 PM · [top]

General Convention delegates are elected by each diocese.  I no longer am an Episcopalian, but I’ve always held the view that the Presiding Bishop should be elected solely by the House of Bishops, and if I remember correctly, that was the procedure until fairly recently.  I recall hearing that years ago (the 1950s, I think) the House of Bishops met in Convocation to elect one of themselves Presiding Bishop, and the announcement was made public in a manner similar to that of the Vatican, when a bishop would open the door and announce “We have a new Presiding Bishop,” and shortly thereafter, his name would be made public.  Originally, the senior bishop assumed the post, and his job was primarily to chair the meetings of the House of Bishops.

[122] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-27-2011 at 07:33 PM · [top]

Gnu, to see what 815 is, you can just mouse over it in your comment.

[123] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 6-27-2011 at 07:38 PM · [top]

And why would a rector in a situation such as this resign from his parish and from Holy Orders?  Shame, a feeling of guilt, perhaps?  The realization that he did not belong in Orders?

[124] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-27-2011 at 07:41 PM · [top]

When we say “815 lawyers,” we are simply referring to the Chancellor of TEC and other lawyers working on behalf of Schori and Company at 815 Second Avenue in New York, which is The Episcopal Church Center.  The lawyers for the Church, in other words.

[125] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-27-2011 at 07:45 PM · [top]

They actually work for a private law firm.

[126] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-27-2011 at 07:46 PM · [top]

Gnu, to see what 815 is, you can just mouse over it in your comment.

Ah, right. Neat. How does that work, then? Is there a glossary of these terms?

Anyway, I got it, thanks.

[127] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-27-2011 at 07:53 PM · [top]

I’m not sure if there’s a glossary or how it works… Greg Griffith is the computer genius around here.

[128] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 6-27-2011 at 07:56 PM · [top]

The national administrative offices of The Episcopal Church are located at 815 Second Avenue in New York City.

It gets called “815”, which is much simpler than saying “heaven’s outpost on earth”, or something else.

815 lawyers are those hired by The Episcopal Church. The PB has her very own lawyer.

I cannot begin to explain the polity of TEC. I started something, and then deleted it. It’s not a democracy, but there are elections. For example, VGR was elected Bishop of New Hampshire, and KJS was elected PB.

The way that clergy discipline is handled will change on July 1. I don’t know if there’s any provision for the impeachment and involuntary removal of a PB from office.

[129] Posted by Ralph on 6-27-2011 at 07:57 PM · [top]

The mouse-over defines PB as “Episcopal Church’s equivalent of archbishop.” Oh, my goodness. There isn’t a smiley face there.

She wishes.

[130] Posted by Ralph on 6-27-2011 at 08:02 PM · [top]

Ralph, Cennydd, thanks for the explanations. When I first read that ‘815 lawyers had said X’, I was really impressed. Wow, over 800 lawyers agreed on something! They must be right!

Silly me.

[131] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 6-27-2011 at 08:38 PM · [top]

It might interest you to know, Gnu, that the PB has her own personal chancellor…..I spelled that with a small “c” because she’s not officially a lawyer for 815, but she is the PB’s personal lawyer.  She needs one.

[132] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-28-2011 at 08:08 AM · [top]

And isn’t it interesting that she calls her lawyer her “personal chancellor,” as if she thinks she’s someone special and merits one?

[133] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-28-2011 at 11:22 AM · [top]

The Schori ‘no one strike’ story has made it to the Church of England Newspaper:
and the Living Church:
There are also quite a lot of people asking for answers from all ends of the church - and quite right too.  What could be more important than safeguarding youngsters in the care of the church?

[134] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 6-29-2011 at 01:17 PM · [top]

The logical thing for Schori to do is to immediately resign her position, but we all know that she will have to be tossed out on her ear by a special meeting of the Executive Council on behalf of General Convention.  Unless they suddenly grow a spine and realize that if they don’t fix the problem, that’ll never happen.

[135] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-29-2011 at 01:44 PM · [top]

There is a disturbance in the force…

[136] Posted by Publius on 6-29-2011 at 01:50 PM · [top]

In the Armed Forces, if you are in command, you are responsible for everything that goes on.  You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.  So far, Schori hasn’t accepted responsibility for this situation, and therefore, she must ultimately be called on the carpet and held responsible for what has transpired.

[137] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-29-2011 at 02:01 PM · [top]

“The Schori ‘no one strike’ story has made it to the Church of England Newspaper.”


[138] Posted by Ralph on 6-29-2011 at 02:17 PM · [top]

Remember, all they could make stick on Capone was a tax evasion charge, but it did work.

I don’t think there’s a mechanism in place to discipline or force out a sitting PB. Nor do I think that the other bishops would have the courage to try. When others have disagreed with her, she has taken no prisoners.

Has anyone looked to see how the new Title IV (in effect tomorrow) addresses these things?

[139] Posted by Ralph on 6-29-2011 at 02:29 PM · [top]

And, here’s a nice strong statement from the Bishop of Nevada. We don’t have anything to worry about, and he has a plan that will keep this from ever happening again. wink wink

I wonder how many lawyers vetted it.

[140] Posted by Ralph on 6-29-2011 at 03:00 PM · [top]

A thing to worry about here is:

Will, in the press to “keep our children safe,” measures be taken which also intend to save children from things such as “oppressive language” - making, e.g., clergy who discuss sexual sin liable for discipline under the same measures?

[141] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-29-2011 at 03:16 PM · [top]

My guess is yes - that there will be some attempt at “some positive outcome” from what some on the left might see as “a defeat,” with a big push made for sexual abuse to include language which some consider offensive or belittling, “providing safety” for lgbt young people.

[142] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-29-2011 at 03:27 PM · [top]

The Presiding Bishop is elected by the House of Bishops, meeting at General Convention (next election in 2015).  Once an election is accomplished and certified, the House of Deputies (meeting concurrently) is given the opportunity to affirm the election.
The term “Presiding Bishop” refers in its origin only to their relationship to the House of Bishops, that is, the bishop who presides over the House of Bishops.  Duties and responsibilities pertaining to the rest of General Convention, and to the denomination as a whole have been gradually added over the many years.  It is now a common occurrence to overhear deputies and others in the halls of General Convention referring to the Presiding Bishop as being the person who presides over the entire church, not just the House of Bishops.  That is incorrect, but it has given impetus to the notion of entitling the Presiding Bishop as the Primate of The Episcopal Church, the implication being authority over every bishop, every priest and deacon, and every member of the laity.  The Title IV revisions may in fact be the foundation for such authority (in the long run, I don’t know who in their right mind would actually want such a change in polity.  It does remind me of the consequences of the Lord’s permissive will in allowing a king to rule Israel.  Even with God’s warnings through the prophet Samuel).
Anyway, the bishops elect “our” presiding bishop.

[143] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 6-29-2011 at 03:45 PM · [top]

Ultimately, Rob Eaton+, Katharine Jefferts Schori must accept responsibility for what has happened, for, morally, she cannot escape that.  It is a fact.  It has happened on her watch, and nothing can change that.  She was wrong in accepting this priest without first thoroughly investigating his background.

I am no longer a member of TEC, as you know, and therefore all I can do is express my opinion as an outsider, since I left TEC when Bishop Schofield led us out.  I must, however, support Schori’s removal from office….though I know that it likely will not happen.

[144] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-29-2011 at 04:27 PM · [top]

Stand Firm bloggers, the Anglican Curmudgeon has weighed in on the ephebophile priest scandal, with his usual clarity. There’s extensive commentary about how tomorrow’s Title IV revisions might apply. Perhaps this aspect of the PB’s character now warrants a separate thread?

He ends with the delightful quote, “I am not particularly happy about the vast and open-ended expansion in clergy liability under the new Canons. That one of the first hapless perpetrators to be caught in their greatly enlarged snare may be the Presiding Bishop, however, is a particularly satisfying instance of poetic justice.”

[145] Posted by Ralph on 6-30-2011 at 12:11 PM · [top]

In other words, if any of this is proven, then she is truly “hoist by her own petard.”  But what will happen then?

[146] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-30-2011 at 12:32 PM · [top]

Actually, to initiate a Title IV process, nothing need be proven. Furthermore, once the Title IV process is initiated, at least at a diocesan level, it cannot be kept secret.

I wonder whether the PB is canonically resident in a specific diocese…hmmmm.

Perhaps the Curmudgeon, or someone else familiar with canon law, could opine whether anything can be done when the disciplinary process involves a sitting PB.

[147] Posted by Ralph on 6-30-2011 at 12:40 PM · [top]

The Presiding Bishop does not have a diocese of his/her own, and this has been the case since 1940, but his/her cathedra (bishop’s chair) is located in the Cathedral Church of St Peter and St Paul….the National Cathedral in Washington, DC.  Whether or not this means that this is the seat of her bailiwick is open to question, since her office is in New York City.  I would think that, like all other clergy, she must be canonically resident somewhere, and if this is true in her case, then I’d say she’s canonically resident in the Diocese of New York, since she lives and works there.

[148] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-30-2011 at 01:29 PM · [top]

Actually, the Presiding Bishop uses whatever chair is made available to her, but by courtesy whenever she happens to be in Washington, it would be the chair of the Bishop of Washington.

[149] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-30-2011 at 01:31 PM · [top]

I am no expert but I think that the Presiding Bishop’s diocese is one of the odd ones, such as the Diocese of the Episcopal Churches in Europe, or the Diocese of the Armed Forces, etc. The Presiding Bishop does not have an “ordinary”, geographic diocese within a state, such as Nevada.

The answer to the question in #147 is that she is canonically resident in that diocese. #148 is also right, in that there is a carved stone cathedra for the Presiding Bishop in Washington Cathedral, and the service in which presiding bishops are installed in office are usually held in that cathedral. TEC doesn’t really have a separate cathedral for the Presiding Bishop, and when they need one they use Washington Cathedral, but it is owned by the Diocese of Washington, not TEC.

[150] Posted by Publius on 6-30-2011 at 01:46 PM · [top]

Church Publishing isn’t exactly one of the most reliable and up-to-date sources of information about TEC clergy, but here’s her listing:

It has her as being canonically resident in the Diocese of Nevada.

Once charges are filed, and they surely will be, the Title IV process has to be transparent, public. There’s no canonical way to keep it under wraps, and given the weightiness of the potential charges noted by the Curmudgeon, I don’t see how even her supporters will be able to ignore them.

[151] Posted by Ralph on 6-30-2011 at 02:16 PM · [top]

It seems only fitting that what applies to all of the rest of TEC’s clergy should apply to the Presiding Bishop as well.  I think we can expect some defense of KJS’s actions from her supporters, though, and they’ll try to claim some kind of exception for her.  I seriously doubt that this will hold water in the face of growing controversy….not only in TEC, but in the Communion as well.

[152] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-30-2011 at 03:24 PM · [top]

What makes you think a presentment will be filed?  Are you going to be the one doing it?  To date-
She was caught lying on her vita- no action, other than to elect her PB.
She illegally deposed a half dozen bishops- no action, in fact, 67 diocesans backed her up.
She lied openly in accepting the “renunciation of orders” of several bishops, including 2 who actually wrote on the letters “I am NOT renouncing my orders” and another who was a bishop of the CoE- not only was there no action, RW gave her command of the SC, making her functional head of the Anglican Communion.

Given the complicity of the TEC bishops and the ABoC to date, not only will there be no presentment, they will probably make her PB for life (a position the new Title IV gives her anyway.  Unless RW retires and they make her ABoC.

[153] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-30-2011 at 05:05 PM · [top]

[152] Perhaps… that is, if all were equal.  But as we know, some clergy are more equal than others. 

I’m just curious as to who might try to update her wikipedia bio with the news of this lawsuit… Bp. Bennison?


[154] Posted by tired on 6-30-2011 at 05:23 PM · [top]

Sorry Ralph, I am just frustrated over the silence within TEC.  Note that their own news service is ignoring the story, and it certainly looks like the HoBD is being edited for content, after the first couple references to news reports, it is not mentioned at all in the digests of the last several days.
Contrast the Episcopal Life non-story with the Church of England News version-
(he may have posted something else since, so you may need to scroll down). 
Apparently, the placement of the article in CEN is quite prominent. A couple of my British friends have emailed asking about what “articles and clarifications” TEC has put out.  Personally, I haven’t seen one.

[155] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-30-2011 at 05:27 PM · [top]

Yeh, I don’t think anyone will file a presentment.

[156] Posted by Sarah on 6-30-2011 at 05:27 PM · [top]

I do wonder, for how many Episcopalians will this be the “last straw”?

[157] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-30-2011 at 05:38 PM · [top]

In case anyone would like to know, TEC has released information on the tribunal that will be responsible under the new Title IV for imposing the PB’s will on the bishops of TEC-

Bishop Ian T. Douglas of Connecticut; Victor Feliberty-Ruberte of Puerto Rico; Bishop Robert Fitzpatrick of Hawaii; Suffragan Bishop Dena Harrison of Texas; Christopher Hayes of California; Retired Bishop Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina; Bishop Herman Hollerith of Southern Virginia; Bishop J. Scott Mayer of Northwest Texas; the Rev. Marjorie Menaul of Central Pennsylvania; Josephine Powell of Michigan; the Rev. Jesus Reyes of El Camino Real; Diane Sammons of Newark; Bishop Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts; the Rev. Canon Angela Shepherd of Maryland; Bishop Prince Singh of Rochester; the Rev. Robert Two Bulls Jr. of Los Angeles; Bishop James Waggoner of Spokane and Bishop Catherine Waynick of Indianapolis.

Yeah, there is a “fair and balanced” board.

[158] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-30-2011 at 05:49 PM · [top]

#156, good to see one of the bloggers commenting. cennydd and I have been actively bumping this thread for a few days now, risking your righteous wrath for going off-topic.

As far as I can tell, under the new Title IV, the church cat can initiate Title IV proceedings if the Rector fails to clean the litter box. The process has to be transparent - no way to wink-wink, nudge-nudge, and ignore it. So, Sarah, I respectfully disagree. I think multiple people will try, hopefully beginning at midnight.

tj, I’m not at all upset by your post - no need to apologize. You’ve cataloged some serious charges. Let’s break them out:
1. She was caught lying on her vita- no action, other than to elect her PB.
2. She illegally deposed a half dozen bishops- no action, in fact, 67 diocesans backed her up.
3. She lied openly in accepting the “renunciation of orders” of several bishops, including 2 who actually wrote on the letters “I am NOT renouncing my orders” and another who was a bishop of the CoE- not only was there no action, RW gave her command of the SC, making her functional head of the Anglican Communion.

To me, #2 and #3 are very, very serious. But it might be hard to get charges to “stick” on those. I don’t know if charges would “stick” on #1, either.

Remember, they sent Capone to the Big House on tax evasion charges. The failure of due diligence in DioNV (or her going ahead with the ordination knowing full well about this guy’s past), is certainly more serious than #1. All of these taken together, though, paint an ugly picture of her personality. (How long ago did I get taken to task on this very blog site for hinting that Photoshopping a picture of her so that her face is green might provide insights?)

But, the way I read the Curmudgeon’s article, there might be a chance that the DioNV scandal would “stick” enough to be carried all the way through the Title IV process. Probably reversed on final appeal, but you never know.

Time will tell on that, of course.

[159] Posted by Ralph on 6-30-2011 at 05:57 PM · [top]

Whsat’s really funny is that many of the pro-TEC regular bloggers are brazenly ignoring the the whole Parry mess.  Mark Harris?  Nope.  Terry Martin?  Nope.  Susan Russell?  Nope.  Elizabeth Kaeton?  Nope.  If I had time I’m sure I could dig up a few self righteous and self serving comments made by these very bloggers about Chuckles Bennison…but their silence on the present scandal is deafening.  There is one and only one(that I can tell)pro-TEC blogger who is making a noble attempt to hold her feet to the fire for her serious lapse in judgment…that would be June Butler.  Why is it that she can take off her rose colored glasses and see this for the problem that it is but these other learned bloggers can’t do the same?  Interesting.  This is EPIC FAIL for TEC.

BigTex AC

[160] Posted by BigTex AC on 6-30-2011 at 06:11 PM · [top]

As far as I can tell, under the new Title IV, the church cat can initiate Title IV proceedings if the Rector fails to clean the litter box. The process has to be transparent - no way to wink-wink, nudge-nudge, and ignore it.

I respectfully disagree, Ralph.  I think quite the opposite.  The new title IV is specifically designed to give the PB the power to depose, but actually takes it away at a lower level- dioceses can be overruled by 815, even in the case of parish clergy discipline.
And as for transparency, where in the canons is this open, transparent process guaranteed?  Now a panel of 18 people decides these things via private email, they may even be drawing up their own “hit lists” as I write this.
The whole of the new Title IV is folly.  Now the HoB has to come to grips with the fact that they have given absolute power to someone who knowingly ordains….well, nevermind, they will figure it out when facing their own depositions.

[161] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-30-2011 at 06:15 PM · [top]

Of all she does & has done, this (Christology) is by far the most serious issue (I think).  But this issue itself is so serious that it almost puts me way to the side in not having any relevant opinion about the other stuff re. disciplinary measures.  It’s like suggesting trying a man who’s known to have committed murder, for stealing a lollipop.  In a way it’s a bit surreal.

I’d also plea: that we remember how important teachings of Christ are, and how utterly awful denial of Christ is by church leaders; that this is worse than actual sex abuse, sex abuse policies, cover-ups, election deception, etc..  But also: that this is not merely +KJS’s fault - in a very significant sense, it is our fault for having put her in that position and maintained her there.  It says a lot about us, also that we go yadda yadda yadda so much about SSB’s etc., when this remains such an enormous issue within TEC and the Communion - I don’t mean simply these statements of +KJS’s, but the general spread of awful teachings about Christ and denials of who He is.

[162] Posted by j.m.c. on 6-30-2011 at 06:15 PM · [top]

Clearly, the deck is stacked against conservatives….clergy and laity alike….and they now officially have no place within TEC, contrary to what Schori and Company would have us all believe.  By their actions, they are known to be hypocrites, and they will eventually have to answer for them to God Himself….as if they even believe in Him.

[163] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-30-2011 at 06:15 PM · [top]

After tomorrow, I think we can expect more people to leave….clergy and laity alike.

[164] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-30-2011 at 06:17 PM · [top]

There.s an online summary of the new process. It seems like I’ve seen something like it at one of the 815 websites, but I cannot find it. However, there’s a pdf at that site called “Training Material for Title IV (PDF, 1.13 MG)”.

Some excerpts:
- Anyone can report information concerning an Offense to the Intake Officer (IO). The new canons do not contain a finite listing of individuals or groups with standing to raise concerns about an Offense.

- Information may be submitted to the IO “in any manner and in any form.” (6.2) This appears to include written and oral reports. There is no requirement that the person providing the information identify him/herself.

- This initiates a process to hold clergy accountable for their behaviors. There are two things that the IO must do; write an intake report and determine whether the information in the report, if true, would constitute an Offense. The intake report should include “as much specificity as possible.”

- If the IO thinks that it is necessary, he/she may conduct a preliminary investigation. The IO provides copies of the intake report to the other two members of the Reference Panel (the Bishop and the President of the Disciplinary Board) as well as the Church Attorney (CA).

- The Complainant has a right to appeal the IO’s decision to dismiss a matter.

- All communications and deliberations during the intake stage are confidential…

It goes on for 42 pages.

#162, one of the listed offenses is to “Hold or teach any Doctrine contrary to that held by the church.” Given that the canons and 1979 BCP rubrics contain our Doctrine, it should be quite easy to make a list of bishops and other clergy who have been openly holding, teaching, and/or practicing any Doctrine contrary to that held by the church.

Let the fun begin.

[165] Posted by Ralph on 6-30-2011 at 07:00 PM · [top]

Ralph,  my whole point was that the process is in no way transparent- it is up to the intake officer and the bishop whether anything happens at all.  People can file complaints with the intake officer until the cows come home- none of that is public.
Good luck with getting anyone tried for holding a doctrine contrary to the doctrine held by the church.  That has been a canonical offense all along.  Pike, Righter, etc, etc. all got away with it.  HOLDING a doctrine that is NOT contrary to the doctrine of the Church in 1979 is now a deposable offense.

[166] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-30-2011 at 07:24 PM · [top]

RE: “good to see one of the bloggers commenting. . . . “

Well, it’s not as if any of us are unaware.  But it’s been hard to churn up the interest enough to post about it. It’s in various other online places where SF commenters can go comment if they please.

But, you know, we already know who she is, people.  Her actions are perfectly understandable, considering her beliefs and her values and her foundational worldview.  None of this is a surprise or remotely shocking.  She is who she is.  She behaves as she is.

By the looks of things in some of these comments, though, it appears that there are still people who do not understand what sort of organization, however, that TEC is.

How could you possibly be a part of TEC for so long and still not know its nature?

I don’t know—I throw up my hands and shake my head.  It’s like its willful delusion.

Good luck, though—perhaps another 5-10 years will Reveal All!  ; > )

[167] Posted by Sarah on 6-30-2011 at 08:03 PM · [top]

Well, folks, I’ve been out of the loop for some time, so read through these comments today to catch up.  A few years back there were many comments on this site re KJS’s talent to muddy the waters with “squid ink”, later shorted to “squinking.”  Now scanning down, I learn that her published scientific articles (#26) were on squid.  I haven’t laughed so much in many moons.  Thank you, thank you!  And God Bless.

[168] Posted by RLHarrell on 6-30-2011 at 08:29 PM · [top]

But, you know, we already know who she is, people.

I’m about as cynical as anyone in the Anglican Communion, and I have to admit that KJS took even me by surprise with this one.  I had taken her to be serious about protecting kids when she took Bennison, one of her most ardent sycophants, and threw him under the bus.  I thought she actually believed in something worthwhile, even if she was a heretic.  But if the current incident is what it looks like it is, her actions against Bennison were clearly both hypocritical and self serving.  She inhibited Bennison because he was an embarrassment, not for moral reasons. I now half wonder if she didn’t know what the outcome of all that would be- remember that he is reinstated as bishop of Pennsylvania.  As it is, she will probably bring Title IV charges against him next week, but as soon as she does, she should resign.  And if TEC bishops, EC members, etc. have any brains, they will do everything they can to make make both things happen- depose Bennison and rid themselves of KJS.  Please do note my condition: “if they have any brains”- so, no, I am not expecting much.

[169] Posted by tjmcmahon on 6-30-2011 at 08:41 PM · [top]

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori sees herself as a wartime President, and all of her actions lead toward a more “nimble” evolvement of Church Practice.  The Title IV new Presiding Bishop’s new Authority is plain exercise of a Church centralized in one figure: the pb herself.

The construction of our body of Constitution and Canons never envisioned a Church at war; and her only penalty for bending and reinventing C & CC would be for her to to become dismissed.  There is no provision for this action.  Unless she herself would use her new powers to dismiss herself because of the pedophile priest she received into our Church without due process.

Looked at as a war President, all her discuplinary actions make an odd kind of sense.  That, and the very strange moral theology now within the Church (with the “morality optional” seminary trained clergy added to the pot), should lead us to invoke Our Lord for her conversion.  We should be praying for her, especially in view of their possible successes in legal matters this year.  They would only encourage her.  This is a sick thing we are witnessing, and sick people need to be prayed for.


[170] Posted by utmost on 6-30-2011 at 09:16 PM · [top]

Sarah, I do suspect that things in some dioceses are even worse than they seem to be, much much worse, and that there will be further revelations, shocking to some of us and no surprise to others.

Just maybe, you’re getting desensitized. No, I don’t think so. Your name is Sarah, not Apathy. And I’m afraid of you.

Yes, I do know who she is - or at least what’s influencing her. Those beings have names well-known to the Church for centuries. Their only power is that of deception, and they ALWAYS lose, eventually. But, people who choose to accept their influence can have a meteoric rise from obscurity to positions of power. They are strengthened by anger and hate, and are weakened by being mocked. And, by prayer.

I’m not ready to surrender and move on. Where would I go? Those of us in the Southeast could make the weekly commute to DioSC. There’s no real ACNA presence in our area. Start a house Church of Ralph?

I try to follow the news, and continue to be amazed that human nature thinks that things like this can be covered up in the Internet Age. This latest scandal needs to be outed everywhere. Some lawyers might advise that if there’s silence from 815, it will die out and be forgotten. The Curmudgeon’s blog post makes me suspect otherwise.

I won’t claim to be a Righteous Man, but I know that there are still Righteous People in TEC. As long as that’s so, the city will not be destroyed.

[171] Posted by Ralph on 6-30-2011 at 09:21 PM · [top]

Things have gotten to the point where some are now saying that there’s no provision now in TEC’s Constitution and Canons for ridding themselves of a Presiding Bishop who has deliberately abused those canons, and for now, it’s probably true.

This doesn’t mean that the situation can’t or won’t change.  If enough clergy and laity get fed up enough to toss Schori out on her can, it will happen.  And don’t say that it will never happen, for nothing is at all certain.  A lot will depend, I think, on what happens in court with the lawsuits now being filed against her.  She won’t be able to rig them like she’s done with canon law enforcement.

[172] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-1-2011 at 12:38 AM · [top]

It looks as though Shori’s goals are to make TEC into a revisionist’s dream version of the Roman Catholic Church - what the American Catholic Council is trying to do.  The ACC is a conglomorate that includes activist groups promoting LBGT/etc. rights, same-sex marriage, Womyn priests, abortion, etc.  Shori and her colleagues, Spong, Chane, Andrus, et al (with help of the HoD and the silent majority in the HoB) have about done it. 

However, even Elizabeth Kaeton is objecting to the appointment of Bede Parry a former child abuser as a priest in Nevada.  Right now, neither the Diocese of Nevada nor Shori have been named in the lawsuit.

There is a very fine line both legally and in the eyes of the public, between a homosexual male having sexual relations with a 13 year old male and a 17 year old male.  In some states, the legal age of consent ranges between 18 and 16 - the most common age is now 16.  In many states of Mexico, it is 12.

In GOD’s eyes these acts are all sinful - for both laity and for clergy. 

It would be interesting to know what acts and at what age and circumstances, Shori, Spong, the HoB and the HoD, would consider a sexual act wrong and on what they base their position.  It is certainly not Scripture.

[173] Posted by St. Nikao on 7-1-2011 at 05:28 AM · [top]

Regarding the Title IV panel, it is the usual suspects including +Shaw, whose organisation takes would be oblates to gay bars for their introduction to the Episcopal Church.  It appears to follow the standard of judicature and court process set by Stalin in the 1930’s. 

But what has rather interested me is this story that the PB approved and made Fr. Bede Parry a TEC priest when, according to Court filings she had been:
1. advised that he had abused a minor; and
2, been given a copy of a report commissioned by the RC church which concluded, we are told: “The results of this testing revealed that Fr. Parry was a sexual abuser who had the proclivity to reoffend with minors

Instead of answering why she admitted to the TEC priesthood someone manifestly flagged up as a danger to minors who should have been immediately rejected, the PB’s office referred the matter to the diocese of Nevada, who have issued a statement which does not deal with the PB’s approval of Parry while she was Bishop of Nevada.

Why does this matter, including to the wider Communion including the Church of England?  It is because the mutual recognition of doctrine, sacraments and ministry of the Communion means that we receive priests from other Communion countries on the assumption that they have been checked and approved by their churches.  It has been a revelation over the years I have been involved in these blogs, just how corrupt and dismissive of its canons the TEC hierachy is.  It is a massive low point for a bishop to not only knowingly it seems ignore evidence a candidate for TEC ministry was a danger to children, but for the church to not call that bishop to account for her actions,  It is not only a disgrace but a danger to the rest of us.

Using the approval of the PB to become a TEC priest, Fr Parry could well have travelled to another part of the Communion such as England.  He could have been permitted to minister to a CofE parish or a parish in another part of the Communion.  We would have all assumed that TEC’s procedures had been followed, and a child molester would not be knowingly sent to us by TEC and given access to our children.

This is why this matter is important and must be dealt with by TEC, and it is why, I suspect voices from all over the spectrum, including John Chilton in The Lead yesterday, are demanding answers from the Presiding Bishop.  Why did the Presiding Bishop make a known child molester and danger to vulnerable younsters a TEC priest?  Why if TEC will not take this matter seriously and insist on accountability for child protection should we accept the ministry of TEC priests in other parts of the Communion?  It is that serious.

[174] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 7-1-2011 at 09:34 AM · [top]

I agree with you completely, Pageantmaster.  Unfortunately, ++Rowan Williams has demonstrated his unwillingness to get involved, and he will do nothing.  TEC’s orders should and must be declared invalid by the rest of the Communion, but I think we’d be dreaming in asking them not to recognize them.  This does not mean the entire Communion, of course; only those provinces who oppose TEC would do so.

[175] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-1-2011 at 10:13 AM · [top]

#175 cennydd
I am not sure TEC orders should be declared invalid if that is what you meant, but there is a question of can we rely on TEC clergy?  With the +Bennison case, this is the second instance where it has become apparent that the TEC vetting and accountability provisions can be overridden because of who someone is, or who has vetted them.  For the rest of us this selective application of procedures means that we are unsure to what extent any TEC priest is reliable or has been properly checked and vetted.  It raises the issue of those TEC priests already serving in our provinces - have they been checked, have they been properly vetted, and how do we know which of them have had the proper procedures by-passed according to the political clout of the people involved?  How do we know who is safe?  If TEC does not get its act together and get a grip, it may find itself ‘out of Communion’ for reasons it did not anticipate.

[176] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 7-1-2011 at 10:27 AM · [top]

with the
+Bennison case, this is the second instance….

Oh, no, this is hardly the second instance, there have been many more.  Perhaps it is the second instance where the bishop’s name is out there and that has gotten as far as the CEN.  Here such reports tend to be isolated to the news of the local community in which they happen.  Assuming they make the news.
People continue to castigate the Roman Church over such crimes, and rightly so, as all the offending priests should be turned over to civil authorities for prosecution in such cases.  However, keep in mind that the RC Church is 500 times larger than TEC, and world-wide, so its “dirty laundry” whether child abuse or financial scandal, is major headlines.  In absolute numbers, the Roman Church is the largest denomination on earth, and will therefore likely have the largest number of offenders, and largest number of victims.  But there is no statistical reason to think that a child is safer in a TEC parish than in a RC one.
BTW, is the PB showing up for her diocesan visitations on schedule?

[177] Posted by tjmcmahon on 7-1-2011 at 11:25 AM · [top]

175.  Pageantmaster, I couldn’t have said it any better than you, and I agree with you.  Will TEC “get its act together and get a grip?”  Not unless or until they completely reverse everything they’ve done in the past forty to fifty years, and until they sack their present leadership.  Then, and ONLY then can we expect any significant change for the better.  What are the chances of that happening?  As of now, ZERO!

[178] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-1-2011 at 11:34 AM · [top]

Pageantmaster, the implications of this scandal for the rest of the Anglican Communion hadn’t dawned on me. Thank you for that.

Yes, I would think that it should now be a standard of due diligence that a TEC clergyman transferring elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, including ACNA, should have a full psychologic, psychiatric, and detailed background check.

Even then, that process has allowed us to have the Tangerine Queen, and the 815 Popess. Among many others.

[179] Posted by Ralph on 7-1-2011 at 03:05 PM · [top]

#176 Pageantmaster - you make me think of “vetting” and TEC in general.  If it cost $200,000 to “vet” four bishop candidates (plus a few more who weren’t chosen as final candidates, plus a few nominated from the floor) - for a total of eight pages of official electoral material on them, which contained a major error about the career of one of these - and when exposed, this electoral irregularity was never subject to public investigation - it’s quite possible that TEC as a culture isn’t really up to the rigors of “vetting.”  I.e., a commitment to truth is lacking - and there’s too much committed attention to the promotion of persons’ careers who seem to be “in line” with one’s ideological goals (or perhaps it’s even only simple charity and a desire to avoid details which could cause controversy).  At any rate - it’s something that needs to be explored, understood, changed.

This for me also raises the question on a Communion level: we have +KJS in two of the Instruments of Communion, plus Standing Committee.  Then we also have Janet Trisk in the Consultative Council and on the Standing Committee - but she doesn’t believe in God.  I’d suggest: we have a big problem with this at our Communion level.

[180] Posted by j.m.c. on 7-1-2011 at 03:51 PM · [top]

179.  I think it’s only fair to say that it should be required for all transfers between provinces.  What applies to one province should apply to all of them….and to any clergy applying for transfer from non-Anglican jurisdictions, as well.

[181] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-1-2011 at 05:19 PM · [top]

In other words:  Be fair!

[182] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-1-2011 at 05:20 PM · [top]

This is all quite exciting. I find it amazing that PBS has remained silent on this Perry affair, because the allegations/questions are serious. 

Maybe you should hold a demonstration? Go and physically sit on PBS’s doorstep until she answers your questions?

Gnu Agent Provocateur Ordure.

[183] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 7-1-2011 at 06:39 PM · [top]

Exciting? To an atheist, perhaps. I find it very saddening. Tragic, in a Shakespearean way.

Amazing? She’s very lawyered-up. I suspect they’re telling her not to say a word lest it stir up the embers. And we don’t know whether there’s a “back-story” at the Las Vegas parish.

PBS? In the US, PBS = “Public Broadcasting Service”

Sit on the PB’s doorstep? How 60’s! She’d have us arrested. Perhaps shot at.

Agent Provocateur? He who exalts himself shall be humbled.

[184] Posted by Ralph on 7-1-2011 at 07:06 PM · [top]

I agree that Schori’s legal beagles have told her to keep her trap shut for fear she’ll do even more damage.  But of course, now that the cat’s been let out of the bag…........

[185] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-1-2011 at 09:22 PM · [top]


Exciting? To an atheist, perhaps.

Apologies, I meant no schadenfreude, Ralph. I was merely observing, as others have done, that maybe this is the issue which will bring PBS down. And I support you in that aim, because it seems to me that you have a leader who has somehow hijacked your Church - who does not represent you at all. I remember reading her views on pantheism, and was amazed that an Anglican bishop should express herself in such terms.

I find it very saddening. Tragic, in a Shakespearean way.

Yes, if the PBS is proven to have feet of clay, then it would be about hubris - the subject of many a Greek tragedy.

Sit on the PB’s doorstep? How 60’s! She’d have us arrested. Perhaps shot at.

In which case you would win. grin

[186] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 7-1-2011 at 09:46 PM · [top]

I’m aware of a prayer group that’s asking God to rebuke her and her cronies, citing Luke 1:51-52.

It is a very sad state of affairs when anyone in Holy Orders needs to be brought down, but even a cursory look at church history shows that the Church hasn’t always placed Godly people into positions of temporal authority and power. At least Anglicanism, unlike Roman Catholicism, realizes that its leadership can be deeply flawed people who make very serious and tragic mistakes.

It isn’t my church. It’s God’s church. and He’s been testing it thoroughly. In the particular cases of Anglicanism and TEC, he’s using folks like our PB to see how we’ll respond. Some have succumbed, some have stayed on, and some have run away to places where the tests are different but even more severe.

The Church, particularly TEC, hasn’t been faring well in these tests, but we know from Revelation that although things might look bad, it will eventually be OK.

I don’t know if it will take an Armageddon-like confrontation - Tiananmen Square - Wayne State - Leipzig - to bring people to their senses. But, maybe it will.

If this is about winning and losing, then it’s God who wins, and the devil who loses. But it will take generations to restore the battlefield.

[187] Posted by Ralph on 7-2-2011 at 06:15 AM · [top]

Ralph, I agree, well said.

[188] Posted by MichaelA on 7-3-2011 at 06:22 PM · [top]

Schori just became the most powerfull bishop with her Title IV Disciplinary Canons taking effect July 1.
Woe be unto us all.

[189] Posted by bradhutt on 7-4-2011 at 09:06 AM · [top]

I would much rather see a large group of laity with guts be established and organized with the intention of severely rebuking her and her cronies….and I’m not talking about a committee at General Convention!  How much longer are people going to tolerate this woman before they demand her resignation and deposition?

[190] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-4-2011 at 09:53 AM · [top]

#190, My good Welsh friend, we haven’t the authority and power to rebuke anyone. We simply don’t know what additional tests God has planned for her before her final judgment - that Ultimate Rebuke.

Jude 1:8-10

One might offer advice and counsel, but one doubts that she follows Stand Firm very closely.

If she’s in the flesh (thorns of sin having choked the growth of the Spirit, given at baptism), then she’s still under the Law, and its severe penalties. May she hear the Word of God, and may God give her understanding. May God heal her, so that she might be in the Spirit.

#189, KJS may well seem to have power, but if that power isn’t from God, then we do know from where it has come. If the latter, while it has the appearance of power, it’s merely deception. We’ll see how she uses it, and (more importantly) so will God. He’s taking lots of notes. Furthermore, He knows what as-yet-unspoken thoughts are in her heart.

One of the important Greek words in this Sunday’s RCL lessons is κατάκριμα katakrima. That’s where the real power is.

There’s a famous sermon called, “Payday Someday.”

[191] Posted by Ralph on 7-4-2011 at 11:29 AM · [top]

Yep, and that’s the problem, Ralph….you don’t have that “power and authority,”....yet!  This doesn’t mean that you can’t demand it at next the General Convention, though.  Of course, you’d be shouted down and ruled “out of order” by Her Nibs the PB, but what the heck….you’d at least make a loud noise about it, which certainly isn’t happening….yet.  And yes, I’d certainly like to know what additional tests God has in store for TEC before their final collapse into a pile of rubble.

[192] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-4-2011 at 12:48 PM · [top]

It may not be up to us laypeople to rebuke.  But at the very least we can expose.

I am quite convinced that what TEC is teaching to is flock about Christ is the very worst part of all of this ... much worse than the election, the pedophilia, the sex stuff.

Anyone who has information which could be helpful in writing another article on this matter can leave a comment here.

We need to be more diligent in raising the Christology in TEC’s pastoral theology and exposing this, so bishops and primates are better informed of what’s happening.

Guess what?  A lot of people have no idea of this!  And we haven’t been very diligent in writing articles on this matter, or publishing in a manner that’s likely to help these articles “bubble up” the information chain toward bishops and primates.

The question, in the end, can be summed up in this very simple manner: does the Anglican Communion wish to be Trinitarian Christian in practice?  Or does it wish to embrace some other form of religion?

We simply need to make clear to what extent the promotion of faith in a dead prophet à la Marcus Borg - the “dead Jesus story” - has become prominent in the upper levels of TEC.  Put compellingly, and raised to the attention of enough clergy and bishops in our Communion, this should be enough to convince bishops and primates who may be reluctant to do the right thing, for whatever reasons ... to go ahead and do that right thing.

[193] Posted by j.m.c. on 7-4-2011 at 01:00 PM · [top]

And who says that it is not up to the laity to publicly rebuke TEC’s leaders at General Convention….or anywhere else, for that matter?  Is there something in their Constitution and Canons which says they can’t?  I don’t think so.

[194] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-4-2011 at 04:13 PM · [top]

Or will Bonnie Anderson and Katharine Jefferts Schori….who control things….forbid it?

[195] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-4-2011 at 04:36 PM · [top]

“Guess what?  A lot of people have no idea of this!”

That’s a good point, j.m.c. Its often surprising how little people realise of what’s going on. Its partly because the liberals are past masters at keeping below the radar - often exposure turns out to be their undoing.

[196] Posted by MichaelA on 7-4-2011 at 04:48 PM · [top]

[119] j.m.c. 
I came across your contribution when scanning this blog for the first time. You raised the tone and I enjoyed reading your comment, which was well-phrased and gentle in tone and overdue.

[lengthy comment decrying SF and Anglican conservatives in general deleted—off topic; Gweilo issued a warning; of note, three of the five bloggers here are members of the Episcopal Church and hordes of commenters here are Episcopalians, so Gweilo can’t even gain any *real* satisfaction from the fantasy that the conservative commenters are out of TEC]

[197] Posted by gweilo on 7-5-2011 at 03:08 AM · [top]


Thanks for your kind words.  I’m sorry also that you’ve experienced having the rest of your comment removed - I don’t know what you said, but I have often, when faced with the issues of the Communion, found myself using unapt words, and speaking more from anger than anything else.

[sorry JMC—the thread simply isn’t going to be turned to the evils of conservatives—one can go peruse various revisionist activist blogs to read those sorts of comments, or start one’s own blog—comment deleted, off topic; also this thread isn’t about Christology—I won’t delete the links but please don’t carry the conversation forward; this thread is, despite others’ irritations over the topic, about “[UK] Katharine Jefferts Schori ‘embellishes’ her CV to become the first female primate of the AC”]

Nonetheless, I like to find ways of bringing people together when I can, and I am glad that you are here, gweilo. I’m also quite a fan of Gerard Manley Hopkins.

There is nothing that makes me so despondent as hearing that our church leaders are denying Christ and teaching their flocks to do the same.  Though I like to try to bring together, it needs also to be known that evidence shows that this tendency is a great deal more prominent in TEC than it is elsewhere.

Anyways - my own language is probably also likely to seriously put you off at times - as it does even some “conservatives” here. My honest assessment of faith in the Communion - based on plenty of empirical evidence - is rather negative.

I do hope you are here partially because you see that there are profound problems in the Communion. Even if you disagree with the majority at SF on the sex issue - which I think many have been focusing on too much - I hope you can see that with the situation of our Christology, we have likely become the most profoundly displeasing institution in the ey

[198] Posted by j.m.c. on 7-5-2011 at 04:45 AM · [top]

(sorry, comment somehow got chopped)
... in the eyes of God which mankind has seen for the last thousand years or so. And whatever you believe about sex ... we can rejoice together whenever we are able to call Anglicans to understand how important it is for our clergy to refrain from entreating their flocks to deny Christ.

On our problems with Christology - see here
On our having lost a sense of honesty and justice - see here

Blessings to you.

[199] Posted by j.m.c. on 7-5-2011 at 04:54 AM · [top]

T19 has posted the legal petition in the case against Bede Parry, which states that the Bishop of Nevada also received a copy of the psychological report that kept him from joining a Roman Catholic monastery.

[200] Posted by St. Nikao on 7-5-2011 at 07:12 AM · [top]

dear moderator - my apologies for going off-topic; and thanks for your diligent moderation - such is very necessary in any passionate online discussion.  I frequently need a nudge in the right direction, and am blessed that people like you are here to provide such a nudge.

Back to the embellished CV!

[201] Posted by j.m.c. on 7-5-2011 at 08:33 AM · [top]

This is a damning indictment, and I wouldn’t care to be in KJS’s shoes.

[202] Posted by cennydd13 on 7-5-2011 at 08:33 AM · [top]

[199]  j.m.c.
Many thanks for the two links, Christology and honesty/justice…both good reads. I’m sorry for getting you chastised by the moderator. One has to take it on the chin. After years in Asia, I am accustomed to censorship. Goes with the turf!
Pax tecum

[203] Posted by gweilo on 7-5-2011 at 10:34 AM · [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.