diogenes posted this today on Off The Record at Catholic World News.  Thought everyone here might find it quite interesting.

Jim Naughton is the Canon for Communications and Advancement of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and, in his role as spokesman, a frequent commentator on the problems vexing the Anglican Communion. Naughton used to be a Catholic, and a member of Holy Trinity Parish in Georgetown, about whose conflicts he wrote a fairly-presented, lucid, and convincing account called Catholics in Crisis (1996).  Naughton was a player in the controversies about which wrote, and did not hide his progressivist convictions—convictions which, when he was a Catholic, made him a vocal opponent of centralized authority and a champion of parochial independence. A 1997 message thread discussing Holy Trinity’s battles with then-Archbishop James Hickey includes this posting by Naughton:

The archdiocese has been looking for a pretext under which to punish the parish for cooperating with me in my research for Catholics in Crisis, and it seems as though the moment may finally have come. Last night, William Lori, auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Washington, Bernard Gerhardt, chancellor of the archdiocese, and another diocesan priest conducted the first of a series of interviews with committee chairpersons and parish staff. They are investigating alleged “liturgical abuses” at the parish. The “visitation” was supposedly occasioned by an incident that occurred during the Octave of Christian Unity when an Episcopal priest and a Presbyterian (I think) minister, both women, preached at a liturgy at Trinity and were later invited (it isn’t clear by whom) to distribute communion.

chop

I think all of this is a lengthy pretext for firing a few Trinity staff people whom conservatives in the archdiocese have been gunning for some time (one of whom, the liturgy director, was a central figure in my book), but I suppose it could lead to Cardinal Hickey ousting the entire Jesuit staff.

Note that the Catholic Naughton was almost a congregationalist in his insouciance about communicatio in sacris and his phobia against archdiocesan control. Later he became an Episcopalian, got a job on the staff of the Episcopal Diocese, and, with the instruments of authority in the hands of fellow Lefties, the secessionist poacher had turned curialist gamekeeper. Check out the Anglican Naughton’s response in a 2005 interview, when asked what he liked best about his job:

I suppose it’s that the variety is great. Last month, for instance, there was a bill in the Virginia state senate that could cause a lot of trouble for the Episcopal Church because it would have unilaterally changed the governing structure of our Church in a way that favored parishes eager to break away [emphasis mine]. So I worked with a few others folks to try to bring this legislation to people’s attention—to kill it with sunshine.

Lest I be misunderstood, I don’t mean to imply that Naughton has been inconsistent or insincere. On the contrary, he shows the highly consistent political discipline of a convinced Leftist, for whom subsidiary issues (like ecclesiology, or even church affiliation) are governed not by principle but by their utility in bringing about the desired changes. Yesterday you had a conservative archbishop to contend with, and the cry was for autonomy; today you have a liberal on the throne, and you deplore the “separatist agenda” of your antagonists. Once you’ve convinced yourself that you have seen The Future—as every progressivist has—the prime moral imperative is to do what is necessary to make that vision a reality.

It’s beginning to look like the man behind the curtain needs a better set of drapes. 

Oh my.

Oh my my.

“Yesterday you had a conservative archbishop to contend with, and the cry was for autonomy; today you have a liberal on the throne, and you deplore the “separatist agenda” of your antagonists.”

So so true.

My favorite line is this:

“Note that the Catholic Naughton was almost a congregationalist in his insouciance about communicatio in sacris and his phobia against archdiocesan control. Later he became an Episcopalian, got a job on the staff of the Episcopal Diocese, and, with the instruments of authority in the hands of fellow Lefties, the secessionist poacher had turned curialist gamekeeper.”

Jackie—where on earth do you find this stuff!!  ; > )

an Episcopal priest and a Presbyterian (I think) minister, both women, preached at a liturgy at Trinity and were later invited (it isn’t clear by whom) to distribute communion.

Well if that doesn’t constitute “liturgical abuses”  in a RC church I don’t know what would.

As to the Diogenes post…CRUNCH…that had to hurt.

By the way…these days William Lori is Bishop of Bridgeport, CT, Supreme Chaplin for the Knights of Columbus and well on his way to a Cardinal’s hat.

Once you’ve convinced yourself that you have seen The Future—as every progressivist has—the prime moral imperative is to do what is necessary to make that vision a reality.

This is indeed the critical step - to self-identify as a member of the moral vanguard.  It is an act of presumed moral insight which reduces all opposition to either ignorance or malevolence.  It is why this argument has no possible resolution.  A moral vanguard neither heeds nor needs an external authority (like say Scripture), but looks only to its own enlightened council.  Once having ascended to the throne, the vanguard will brook no pretenders to its rightful position.  Nor will it long tolerate descent.

carl

Nor will it long tolerate descent.

Actually, Carl, TEC will tolerate descent, but it does not tolerate dissent….

Very astute comments, Carl.

This is indeed the critical step - to self-identify as a member of the moral vanguard.  It is an act of presumed moral insight which reduces all opposition to either ignorance or malevolence.  It is why this argument has no possible resolution.  A moral vanguard neither heeds nor needs an external authority (like say Scripture), but looks only to its own enlightened council.

Perfect.

An insightful <a >comment</a>, carl, thanks.

Recommended reading: Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed, which makes the case with his usual combination of scholarship, analytical rigor, and readability that the hallmark of the Left is not any particular political position, but rather the overwhelming requirement that their personal sense of moral superiority be preserved at all costs.  Once you fully understand this, their total imperviousness to such usual methods of suasion as facts, logic, and even common sense—witness a typical session at Jake’s blog, or Susan’s—becomes comprehensible.

Great find, Jackie.

Sounds like to me he moved over into the right “church.”

Maybe I’m just dumb here but what happened when Naughton, KJS and others became TECpiscopalians? Doesn’t conversion mean you change….not the church?

Actually, Carl, TEC will tolerate descent, but it does not tolerate dissent….

Yet another fundamentalist appeal to some “objective” standard.  As if the dictionary is infallible.  But I say to you that the spirit of Webster is doing a new thing.

carl

The revisionists have been doing new things with the Spirit of Webster for a long time. :-(

“I suppose it could lead to ....ousting the entire Jesuit staff.”
As a Catholic all I can say is ” hope springs eternal”

Aglicanism used to be a sanctuary for those who wanted a reformed Catholicism. Now it has thrown the doors open to be a refuge (well sanctuary is hardly the right word as its root comes from Sanctus, Holy, which is anything but TEC these days) for those who want a nonChristian form of catholicism (Naughton’s turn of face and two- facedness is due to his oxymoron now being gored). With the new “open” catholics gaurding the door and showing it back to us is there any realistic possibility that TEC will not swell even further with those who like everything about catholicism as long as it isn’t Christian? What chance is there that TEC, or Anglicanism in the West will ever be a haven for conservative Protestant catholicism?

When the local pub becomes a gay bar, is it ever going back before it closes completely?

Last call everyone!

If you want “reformed Catholicism” or “Catholic Protestantism” (the latter of which I think a perfect oxymoron—but then I would, wouldn’t I?), there is still the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod?  I am not being wholly facetious in saying this, since it is only either (a) if one holds episcopacy-in-the-apostolic-succession to be a sine qua non of “Catholicism” or (b) if one takes as the norm of Anglicanism the Tractarian or Anglo-Catholic or (merely) high-church tradition that one can assert that Anglicanism is either qualitatively or quantitatively more “Catholic” than “undiluted” (by pietism) Lutheranism.  Lutheranism in its eucharistic doctrine, its retention, at least in some areas, of the practice of private confession and absolution and its liturgical practice (at least down until well into the 18th Century, and even afterwards in some few areas) retained far more of traditional pre-Reformation Catholic beliefs and practices than did any Anglican church; and so Lutheran bodies that have preserved their heritage largely intact, or done a good job of recovering it, like the MO Synod, have at least as good a claim to the phrase “reformed Catholic” and (given the more-or-less total repudiation of the Reformation or at least the Reformers by Anglo-Catholics) a better claim to that of “Catholic Protestantism” than Anglican churches.

Someone (not I) posted the following note and link over at Titusonenine.  I am transferring it here, as the lionked book review is too good to miss:

Liberal Catholic Michael Winters wrote this scathing and damning review of “Catholics in Crisis:”

http://www.tboyle.net/University/Crisis_Book_Review.html

Read it.  Please.

Thanks for the link, William. Excellent reading.

<a >Dr Tighe</a>,

Apparently the Missouri Synod is alive and well, since they have a brand-new (and reasonably large) church and school here in the rapidly-overdeveloping northwest side of Las Vegas.  (We have a lot of full churches—not, of course, Episcopal—in the Vegas Valley, possibly because the climate and folk culture is so ideally suited to growing really prize crops of sinners.)

From my reading of Lutheran literature, their preferred term seems to be “Evangelical Catholic.”  Interesting.

Rome gets our mighty oaks- we receive their weeds and thistle.

“Rome gets our mighty oaks- we receive their weeds and thistle.”
Now don’t go downing the thistle. It’s a beautiful flower, stands straight and tall and brooks no nonsense. It’s also the national flower of Scotland. I think a more appropriate plant would be poison ivy, don’t you?
cannyscot :<)

PS: The smileys aren’t working. :<(

Mia culpa cannyscot. I probably didn’t get the quote right- I did a google and couldn’t find it, much less who to attribute it to. That was the gist of it though.

via orthodoxy,
No problem. I’ve heard something like that somewhere myself. I figured you were partly working from the parable of the wheat and the tares, which is, I think, translated thistles in some English translations. Never have figured out that translation, as thistles bear no resemblance to wheat!
cannyscot :<)

William, one mark of Catholicity (large C) is being in communion with the See of Peter. MS Lutherans rejected that and thus cannot lay claim to apostolic succession. But their preaching, not to mention their great hymns and choirs, have led more than one soul to the Lord.