Total visitors right now: 118

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Bill Moyers’ video interview of the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (you must see it)

Saturday, June 9, 2007 • 12:55 pm


Bill Moyers’ video interview of the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

See it Here

Be sure to read Baby Blue’s response:

here’s an excerpt:

...Ying and Yang. Ying and Yang. Ying and Yang. Oh my gosh - now she’s saying that Jonathon had a homoerotic love for David. AHHH!!! Now she says that scripture is just a culture book. Bible says gay sex is okiedokie. Please, watch this video. She has no tolerance for any other view then her own. She says that the issue is a “moral issue” and there is no other way, no via media - one way or the other it’s a moral issue, like Slavery! Like Slavery! Those who support the biblical view of human relationships are like Confederates, like those who thought slavery was moral. Oh my gosh. She wants to re-educate Christians to accept homosexual intercourse as a moral thing, because we have a Greek heritage. Oh my gosh, now she’s dividing the male “spirit” and the “female” spirit. Oh, now she’s talking about women leadership…

...more


78 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

I actually found it kind of inspiring…..It may not be such a bad day to be an Episcopalian.
blessings to all
seraph

[1] Posted by seraph on 06-09-2007 at 01:40 PM • top

I too (obviously) thought that it was great.  I’m not so sure why the homoeroticism of the OT mentioned by ++Katharine bothers BabyBlue so much-that’s an old theory.  I did think Bill Moyers was a bit too much in her corner-he lobbed some softballs - especially regarding ++Akinola.

[2] Posted by Brian from T19 on 06-09-2007 at 01:45 PM • top

I got through a few minutes and became ill. Just so much wrong with this… BabyBlue’s hit it on the head.

[3] Posted by dpchalk+ on 06-09-2007 at 02:10 PM • top

Thanks, SFiF—I probably wouldn’t have run across the video without the link here.  Oh, and BabyBlue’s response link doesn’t work, or at least it didn’t for me when I tried it.
Bp Shori is well-spoken.  Early on in the interview, she mentioned a key phrase about something she saw as a human failing, the desire to control access to the sacred.  I’ve described what I think is the same thing by talking of the desire to own the trademark, but she does a better job of summing up the problem.
.

[4] Posted by taomikael on 06-09-2007 at 02:21 PM • top

She uses the interview to reintroduce the David and Jonathan bi-sexual love canard.  For the average person in the pew, her authoritative voice about their relationship may cause them to rethink what they had long learned about David, and what Scripture tells us about our relations with each other.  What a tragedy.

I hope the scholars here will join in on this.  According to my research, in David’s declaration of love for Jonathan as “more wonderful than that of women,” the Hebrew word translated “love” conveys a sense of affection, not erotic love. It is also notable that David refers to Jonathan as his brother, hardly a reference to a sexual relationship. 

The hebrew word used in 1 Samuel 19:1 means “joy of the heart”, which is never used in the Old Testament to denote sexuality.  In 1 Samuel 18:1, Jonathan is “one in spirit” with David, not “one flesh”.

[5] Posted by Going Home on 06-09-2007 at 02:26 PM • top

It’s interesting that she draws a direct connection between women’s ordination and +Gene Robinson’s election:

“I believe that the wrestling with the place of women in leadership, particularly in public leadership, is directly related to the same kind of issue over the position of gay and lesbian people in leadership, in public leadership.”

[6] Posted by allergic_to_fudge on 06-09-2007 at 02:29 PM • top

ABC’s interview with Time and now Moyer’s interview with Schori+, two weeks apart.

I don’t believe the ABC and Schori are talking, but I wonder if discussions aren’t occuring at a staff level regarding ways to influence public and church opinion over the next few weeks.

[7] Posted by Going Home on 06-09-2007 at 02:35 PM • top

Bill Moyer’s trumpets KJS’s ascension to the presiding bishopric after having been an Episcopalian for just 12 years. She is now overseeing the collapse of the church. History will look back and say how she set back the women’s movement for years. Other denominations are taking note.

She uses God as some warm, fuzzy near meaningless notion just as the new age-ers talk about “life force.” Did I hear one reference to Jesus? I don’t think so.

[8] Posted by rob-roy on 06-09-2007 at 02:47 PM • top

She uses the interview to reintroduce the David and Jonathan bi-sexual love canard.

Well, that’s this week’s version.  Next week she’ll be explaining about how no one in biblical times knew anything about long-term committed same-sex relationships, so they could not have been condemning them.

It’s interesting that she draws a direct connection between women’s ordination and +Gene Robinson’s election:

In light of her other less than stellar observations (like the one about Jonathan and David), I wouldn’t worry too much about this.  KJS does not seem to have a gift for drawing direct logical connections.

[9] Posted by William Witt on 06-09-2007 at 03:01 PM • top

KJS does not seem to have a gift for drawing direct logical connections.

No, she’s a ‘scientist’. She’s all about drawing logical conclusions.

[10] Posted by henryleroi on 06-09-2007 at 03:26 PM • top

Timothy, haphetz (1 Sa 19:1) is used in the Torah in reference to erotic delight; and nephesh (1 Sa 18:1) has a wider range of meaning than just “spirit.”  The most striking biblical parallel to the Jonathan/David story is the Dinah/Shechem account in Genesis 34. Much of the vocabulary is the same or similar.
However, I don’t understand exactly the need on the part of some to downplay (or up-play, for that matter) these elements in the J/D account. No one is claiming that either of them were perfect people, or free from sin. David in particular was an adulterous murderer. The account in Gen 34 is about rape, strong desire, and revenge. None of this need be seen as an endorsement of anything.

[11] Posted by TSH+ on 06-09-2007 at 03:38 PM • top

Gosh, but it so annoys me when people speak of David and Jonathan’s love as a gay thing.
Read C.S. Lewis in his description of friendship (philia as a virtue) that was so exalted in ancient times, but we seem not to understand today.
He said it is those who have never experienced the sort of intense love of a true friendship that insist that there must be something homosexual going on.

I’m still an Episcopalian because I am in a very sheltered corner of the world. But man, does this lady scare me! How could she ever have become the head of our church? I am very afraid.
And what is that spirit???? There’s something about her I can’t quite discern, but there is something there that was not at all reassuring.

[12] Posted by little mouse on 06-09-2007 at 03:57 PM • top

Here’s the fixed link at BabyBlue.

bb

[13] Posted by BabyBlue on 06-09-2007 at 03:59 PM • top

And naturally, ‘BabyBlue’ is full of tolerance for the views of others…..the more I hear, the more i am thankful that there is an alternative to the redundant Anglican ‘Communion’ and its pathetic premodern delusions.

[14] Posted by Merseymike on 06-09-2007 at 04:00 PM • top

Sorry all - let’s try that again - here’s the correct link at BabyBlue.

bb

[15] Posted by BabyBlue on 06-09-2007 at 04:04 PM • top

One more try and then it’s off for nice cold Butterbeer.  Firefox is great, but the differences between it and Safari are intriguing.

bb

[16] Posted by BabyBlue on 06-09-2007 at 04:11 PM • top

what’s a butterbeer?

[17] Posted by little mouse on 06-09-2007 at 04:14 PM • top

The URL is acting up ... the same thing happen a while back and was fixed via TinyURL ... thus let’s see if it works ... Try this one to BabyBlue.

(The link worked in “Preview”—joy!)

(Butter Beer is Harry Potter book, which BB is a dedicated fan)

[18] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 06-09-2007 at 04:24 PM • top

TSH+ thanks for the response.

I am eager to learn more about the interpretations of these passages.  I hope others with scholarly
qualifications chip in.

[19] Posted by Going Home on 06-09-2007 at 04:56 PM • top

“No, she’s a ‘scientist’. She’s all about drawing logical conclusions.”

The quality of +Schori’s logical conclusions is highly debatable.  Belief and opinion can be held to with not the slightest shade of logic considered.

[20] Posted by Bill C on 06-09-2007 at 05:03 PM • top

I followed the new link, and found the babyblue rant.  It was a complete waste of time, an unintelligible snarl.  The more I see of her opponents, the more I appreciate Bp. Katharine.
.

[21] Posted by taomikael on 06-09-2007 at 05:38 PM • top

A few points:

- The idea of one part of the body suffering means the entire body suffering sounds hollow as she shows little regard for the affect the consecration of +VGR had on Anglicans facing firm - and at times violent - Muslim opposition. The election and installment of +VGR took place w/out engaging in dialogue with those she now is calling back to relationship. I find it less than credible that liberals call reasserters into dialogue when they ran ahead w/out any dialogue in the first place.

- What positions are +Schori and +VGR willing to take “less likely” in order to maintain relationship? The PB’s calling for a moratorium on consecrating further gay bishops is a start, but calling this a “crucified position” is ludicrous unless she is talking about this being a process of crucifying sexual sins in the episcopate.

- Does anyone know the position of southern Episcopalians re: slavery in the mid-1800’s? The South was not monolithic in support of slavery and I wonder if the telling of this story implicitly misrepresents historical facts.

[22] Posted by texex on 06-09-2007 at 05:46 PM • top

As always, I’m depressed by how shallow, superficial, uninformed, unformed, uneducated, and condescending she is. I’ve worked my whole life with women who’ve skyrocketed up through bureaucracies to positions beyond their competence and she is clearly an example of that. How did she get where she is?

[23] Posted by JanDioMA on 06-09-2007 at 05:46 PM • top

Taomikael, I am glad you appreciate her. I do, too! The orthodox’s best friend. Do you think that her unitarian meanderings go over well in most of the country? There was a charge on David Virtue blog that she, as bishop of Nevada, was 99th on the list of church growth when adjusted for population growth (the diocese shrank by 10% in her tenure while the population exploded). Someone asked the TECs official statistician to look into this. He tried to spin it but did not refute the sorry performance. It is all on the TEC’s official blog, <a > here</a>. She again mentioned the “vitality” of the church in this interview, yet again sacrificing her integrity. I am so happy that the liberals, like yourself, are enamored with her.

[24] Posted by rob-roy on 06-09-2007 at 05:53 PM • top

Why should we care what a heretic says?  But I will say one thing, at least KJS is consistent in her heresy.  Makes be glad to be in the LCMS, where there is excellent Biblical scholarship instead of this garbage.

[25] Posted by Harry Edmon on 06-09-2007 at 05:57 PM • top

JanDioMA asked:  women who’ve skyrocketed up through bureaucracies to positions beyond their competence and she is clearly an example of that. How did she get where she is?
I believe it is called the Peter Principle.

Dr. Rob - I would be amazed if an anti-christian such as Tao-Mik did not admire KJS.  They seem to be on the same mental pathway. 
Sarah - Just wanted to point out that now BB is pullilng in those anti-christian comments.  More competition.

[26] Posted by JackieB on 06-09-2007 at 06:15 PM • top

Schori’s heretical utterings and biblical interpretations are enough to gag a maggot.

[27] Posted by FrankV on 06-09-2007 at 06:27 PM • top

Nest she’ll be claiming that John and Jesus were in a homosexual relationship because John was the beloved disciple.

[28] Posted by FrankV on 06-09-2007 at 06:30 PM • top

“Do you think that her unitarian meanderings go over well in most of the country?”
I suspect that they sell much better than the reasserter snarls, but time will tell.
.

[29] Posted by taomikael on 06-09-2007 at 06:31 PM • top

Numerous Episcopal leaders opposed succession, but few were brave enough to openly condemn slavery.  Jeff Davis attended Episcopal services throughout the war.

Modern commentators get the wrong lessons from the relationship between the southern church and slavery.  In the south, the Episcopal Church was a leading force—Jeff Davis and R.E. Lee were active members.  Its leadership was intertwined with southern culture, which in turn was tied to the economy.  In the seventy or so years leading up to the Civil War, slavery had become a cultural norm and in the eyes of many a political necessity.  The failure of the Episcopal Church leadership in the South to awaken and fight against slavery was in essense a failure to combat popular culture with the Truth, in stark contrast to the work of Wilberforce, Newton and others in England.

The same thing is happening today.  As our culture has moved toward moral relativism, it has been followed by a generation of Episcopal leaders who are no longer moored to the Truth.

[30] Posted by Going Home on 06-09-2007 at 06:39 PM • top

David is undoubtedly reported to have loved, or been fond of, Jonathan in I Sam. 18:1 using the sound verb:  aleph-he-beth.  This is the same verb used in Gensis 37:3 to describe Jacob’s love for his children, including Joseph, and in Lev. 19:18 to describe a component of the Great Commandment, which was recited by Our Lord: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Some—apparently +Schori read this in a strict biological “boing”—sense, i.e.

1.  David boinged Jonathan

2.  Jacob boinged Joseph more than his other children

3.  You shall boing your neighbor as yourself.

Thank you +Schori for this uplifting view of scripture from the Episcopal (close cover before striking) School of Theology.

[31] Posted by Sparky on 06-09-2007 at 06:43 PM • top

The failure of the Episcopal Church leadership in the South to awaken and fight against slavery was in essense a failure to combat popular culture with the Truth, in stark contrast to the work of Wilberforce, Newton and others in England.

The same thing is happening today.  As our culture has moved toward moral relativism, it has been followed by a generation of Episcopal leaders who are no longer moored to the Truth.

AMEN! Preach it brother! (sorry, I know, how unEpiscopalian, but still ...)

[32] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 06-09-2007 at 06:57 PM • top

There must be some mistake here.  This calm, rational, loving leader—all full of sweetness and affection for everyone—can she possibly be the same person who allows her attack dogs to sue orthodox folks over their property?  David Beers must be a fictional character—made up by some nasty orthodox bloggers!  And KJS is surely not supportive of Peter Lee’s suits against the CANA churches.  Those evil orthodox people are just trying to make her look bad.  Listen to her sweet talk of reconciliation!

[33] Posted by hanks on 06-09-2007 at 08:02 PM • top

Textex asks the position of Southern Episcopalians towards the Civil War.  Pretty varied, one assumes, but check the career of Leonidas Polk, bishop of Louisiana, founder of the University of the South, and major-general in the Confederate army.  Killed in action leading his troops at Pine Mountain, Georgia,1864, while still, I believe, bishop of Louisiana.

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

[34] Posted by Lapinbizarre on 06-09-2007 at 08:31 PM • top

Something gnawing at me re cultural arguments in exegesis. 

Suppose we go with Schori for a minute, and assert that head-covering arguments be applied across the board.  In other words, what Paul said was good for his culture, then;  and how we interpret the Bible is subject to what is “the good,” for our culture, in the here and now.

Suppose further that +Matt Kennedy and Bishop Schori have a car accident on the same day, and Walt Disney’s doctor freezes their heads.  They are revived 50 years in the future.  While getting up to speed on the culture of that time and culture, both +Matt and KJS discover that they both consider it (i.e., the culture) as profoundly evil.  In other words, things have become so bad, that two enemies in this culture, become allies in another. 

Suppose further that when they confront one of the religious leaders of the future, the leader says something like this:  “That’s cute.  I’ll give you guys this - you both have tradition on your side.  However, you are both but delightful anachronisms.  Tell you what - I’m not going to impose my values on you, but let’s say this - we won’t agree to war with one another, just for now.  For now, let’s dialogue.”

Bringing it back to the present - It’s clear that Schori is convinced of the existence of absolute truth.  It would seem though, that in embracing cultural relevance, she’s shot herself in both feet, and both knees.

[35] Posted by J Eppinga on 06-09-2007 at 09:02 PM • top

Moot,
Regarding your post in which you said: “It’s clear that Schori is convinced of the existence of absolute truth”.
I got the opposite impression and would like to know how you came to this conclusion and what is the absolute truth that she believes?

[36] Posted by Betty See on 06-09-2007 at 09:19 PM • top

This woman’s “theology” is inarticulate and all-over-the-place. 


“If biology, as I understand it does, tells us that homosexuality is—is a genetic given”.

And Bill Moyers had better be glad he’s a journalist instead of a scientist.  Even though he qualifies it “as I understand it”, the evidence out there that homosexuality is genetic is nearly nil. Someone, too, name me one human ACTION that is “genetic”. 

If I took a couple of ‘ludes and went to bed, it would be a similar experience to reading that interview. 

hmmm 

DUH

[37] Posted by Orthoducky on 06-09-2007 at 09:52 PM • top

One would either have to be amoral to accept money as a Christian clergy person and at the same time expound this swill or be a ..... well….. squid for brains.

[38] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 06-09-2007 at 09:55 PM • top

I can’t believe that I had the stomach to watch the whole interview with that woman. What a heretic. Congregations should be not walking out of their churches they should be running…......

[39] Posted by Horsemansouthern on 06-09-2007 at 09:59 PM • top

Nest she’ll be claiming that John and Jesus were in a homosexual relationship because John was the beloved disciple.

Interesting that you say this. This point exactly was made last weekend in a small group “discussion” at our diocesan special synod in Victoria, BC.
John and Jesus, and David and Jonathon.

What next!!  Although do check out the letter from Zacchaeus Fellowship (if I can put in a plug)!
Jim

[40] Posted by comoxpastor on 06-09-2007 at 10:18 PM • top

What amazes me is not her condescension and heresies but her utter lack of either intelligence or honesty with regards to easily refutable matters.Beside the utter ridiculousness of someone stating they are a scientist in one breath and the very next trying to suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, she will use any perversion of religious history if it suits her. For example bringing up a “Roman mosaic” of Theodora Episkopa as if it something ancient from first century Christianity or even that this meant Theodora was an actual Bishop. The mosaic is in a church commissioned in 780 and clearly shows Theodora to be alive at the time.

We’ll forget that the Council of Laodicea in 325 specifically said women are not to be ordained and say hypothetically this Bishop Theodora was actually a Bishop and not just the wife or mother of one which is the obvious conclusion.

One wonders if this Bishop Theodora attended the Second Council of Nicea in 787 which refers to Bishops as He and Him:


Since we make an undertaking before God as we sing, I shall meditate on your judgments, I shall not neglect your words, it is essential to our salvation that every Christian should observe these things, but more especially those who have been invested with priestly dignity. Therefore we decree that
•  everyone who is to be advanced to the grade of bishop should have a thorough knowledge of the psalter, in order that he may instruct all the clergy subordinate to him, to be initiated in that book.
•  He should also be examined without fail by the metropolitan to see if he is willing to acquire knowledge—a knowledge that should be searching and not superficial—of the sacred canons, the holy gospel, the book of the divine apostle, and all divine scripture;
•  also if he is willing to conduct himself and teach the people entrusted to him according to the divine commandments.
“The substance of our hierarchy are the words handed down from God”, that is to say, the true knowledge of the divine scriptures, as the great Dionysius made plain. If someone is doubtful and ill at ease with such conduct and teaching, let him not be ordained. For God said through the prophet: You rejected knowledge, and I shall reject you, so that you may not serve me in a priestly function.

Somehow I doubt Bishop Theodora made the trip to this Council.
Do Anglicans accept the Second Council of Nicea? It’s clear KJS doesn’t or she would be “willing to acquire knowledge—a knowledge that should be searching and not superficial”. It would seem to me the Anglican Communion would be in a lot better shape if they had followed that “ If someone is doubtful and ill at ease with such conduct and teaching, let him not be ordained.”

[41] Posted by Rocks on 06-10-2007 at 12:44 AM • top

John and Jesus, and David and Jonathon.


No! No! No! It’s clear from KJS’s interview that feminists and gays are arm and arm in the struggle but gays must be happy with David and Jonathon.
We all know from the Da Vinci Code, etc. that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that her gospel clearly shows she was the most beloved and chief apostle of Jesus.
Feminists will fight to the death, of the Anglican Communion and TEC apparently, for gay rights but don’t mess with the Sacred Feminine now! It may have been in fashion to suggest John and Jesus were lovers years ago but it is strictly gauche now. wink

[42] Posted by Rocks on 06-10-2007 at 01:04 AM • top

Betty,

I got the opposite impression and would like to know how you came to this conclusion and what is the absolute truth that she believes?

She’s convinced that she is right and that traditional interpretations of Scripture are wrong (In particular, her condescension towards the latter isn’t lost on me)...  Which as I pointed out, actually puts her smack in the middle of a giant philosophical problem;  a problem incidendally, not shared by reasserters. 

She’ll have a meaningless soundbite reply to this, I am certain.  But it will fall over, if but we breathe lightly upon it.

[43] Posted by J Eppinga on 06-10-2007 at 01:52 AM • top

Although her heresy is obvious to us, I think many orthodox overlook her seductive words.  There are actually some things that I agree with her on. But I also remember that Satan is not so dumb as to come out with a clear lie, but rather he twists the truth ever so slightly that it is imperceptible to the vast majority of the people.  Likewise, Schori is very seductive in speaking about love, generosity, living in harmony with God and God’s creation, yada, yada, yada.  We all want these things!  Orthodox and Heterodox alike would like to see these things come to pass.  She however, despite her lies from Satan, comes across as being very loving.  We who are orthodox may have the truth, but our passion for the truth does not come across as loving towards others, even though it really is.  In reality she is being very hypocritical and arrogant, but when most people see her, they do not see such things.  We orthodox (myself especially), need to speak more gently and kind like ++Orombi.  I don’t think we serve Christ when we pick apart every word someone says in an antagonistic manner.  I am very guilty of doing this, but where I have erred, I repent.  Yes, I believe her to be a heretic, and yes there is a place for combating her heresy with truth, but in a loving respectful manner.  It is not Schori who is our enemy, it is her theology.  May we try to find ways of loving her, however hard that may be.  I think Christ would want that.  Expose her lies, but gently.  The world is watching.  What shall our witness be to them?

[44] Posted by Spencer on 06-10-2007 at 08:09 AM • top

Anglican Paplist,

There is plenty to criticize Bishop Schori for without resorting to “squid for brains.”

[45] Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-10-2007 at 08:12 AM • top

Maybe a good companion to the Moyers interview with PB KJS would be this sermon at Grace Cathedral.  At: http://www.gracecathedral.org/mp3/sermon/ser_20061105.mp3

Being outside the conservative believer folds, I am happy to be taught and headed up by both women, so far at least.  Thank goodness, Thank God.  No problem, then, and probably not at all an eternal problem.

[46] Posted by drdanfee on 06-10-2007 at 10:18 AM • top

“One would either have to be amoral to accept money as a Christian clergy person and at the same time expound this swill or be a ..... well….. squid for brains.”


It looks like her real crime, in the eyes of the speaker, is that she failed to obtain the necessary license from the Purity Board before describing herself as a Christian.
By their works, you will know them.
.

[47] Posted by taomikael on 06-10-2007 at 10:50 AM • top

I think part of it’s our Greek heritage. You know, our tendency toward dualism, that—you know, one part of a human being or a male human being—exemplifies spirit and—a female human being is somehow lesser and—demonstrates the flesh.

KJS hits the nail on the head!  She must have done some serious scholarship on this issue.  The Nigerians’ misogyny has nothing to do with the primitive superstitions of Africa but with their Greek heritage!

[48] Posted by Piedmont on 06-10-2007 at 10:54 AM • top

“The Nigerians’ misogyny has nothing to do with the primitive superstitions of Africa but with their Greek heritage!”
They certainly couldn’t have picked up their misogyny from Christianity, now could they?
Could they?
.

[49] Posted by taomikael on 06-10-2007 at 11:28 AM • top

It looks like her real crime, in the eyes of the speaker, is that she failed to obtain the necessary license from the Purity Board before describing herself as a Christian.

Tao—-Though its leaders like to forget it, every week they declare that they believe in “one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  That is a phrase chosen by the Church Fathers because it has a specific meaning.
It does not mean “we’ll all hold hands and interpret things according to our own Zeitgeist.”  It means that we believe our faith is founded on Scripture as taught by the Apostles and the Church Fathers.  If Bishop Schori deviates from this, she might still be a Christian (though I’m sceptical).—but she has no business drawing a salary and parading around in the fancy robes of a church whose teaching she has rejected.

.

[50] Posted by In Newark on 06-10-2007 at 11:46 AM • top

Dear Greg,
I humbly apologize for that most despicable nom de saltwater, “squid for brains”. It was very bad of me. I will definitely do penance by laying off the calamari for the next six months. I stand by the first part of my response, however. wink
Yours in the Christ who drove the money lenders out of the temple
AP+,

[51] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 06-10-2007 at 12:41 PM • top

They certainly couldn’t have picked up their misogyny from Christianity, now could they?

No, they certainly couldn’t have.  People who, when left to their own devices, practice polygamy and genital mutilation, could not have picked up misogyny from a faith that tells men to “love their wives as Christ loved the church.”

[52] Posted by In Newark on 06-10-2007 at 12:46 PM • top

By their works, you will know them.

Absolutely.  And, of course, our words.  Especially those written on the internet where they never go away, eh, Tao?

[53] Posted by JackieB on 06-10-2007 at 12:51 PM • top

I wish they would stop saying that she was “raised as a Catholic.”  How “raised as a Catholic” can a person be who 1) never set foot in a Catholic church after the age of 9 and 2) had parents who were so dissatisfied with Catholicism that they left it for the Episcopal church??

Also the Jewish comment re: sex on the sabbath being a mitzvah—one of these “profound scholarship” things that you read in Reader’s Digest along with the fact that Eskimos have 37 words for snow.  This supposedly proves that the Jews have a more enlightened attitude towards sex than the Christians whereas we are afraid of sexuality. 

Suggest KJS spend a little time around Orthodox Jews. The Christians have always been wild and crazy libertines compared to them—I mean, what with going around with our hair showing, males and females shaking hands, a menstruating woman being allowed to sit on the same bench as her husband, not having to have our bodily discharges double checked by a rabbi before we can engage in sex (and what about that having sex anytime of the month thing, whereas Orthodox Jews cannot have sex for 7 days following the END of the woman’s menstrual period, meaning basically only two weeks a month.)  In Orthodox synagogues women must be physically and visually separate from men.  On Orthodox buses women must ride in the back and send a child forward to give the fare to the bus driver.  Recently a woman riding a bus to Jerusalem was slapped around and punched because she wouldn’t move to the back when ordered to do so.  Oh yeah—we Christians are just SO screwed up because of our awful “Greek” heritage.  The Jews have a MUCH more enlightened view.

[54] Posted by Catholic Mom on 06-10-2007 at 01:12 PM • top

Catholic Mom, I am a card carrying Protestant, but you have a good point.  “I was raised a Catholic” has become a popular introduction for revisionist leaders, suggesting they were delivered from the muck of rigid, sexually-inhibited, culture.

In fact, most were never practicing Catholics.

[55] Posted by Going Home on 06-10-2007 at 02:06 PM • top

“Especially those written on the internet where they never go away, eh, Tao?”
Poor Ms. Jackie, the energy it must have taken to resist the temptation to repost your treasured find!  (Or was it that the very veiled reference made a better smear?)  Please, be free to make manifest your deepest Christian beliefs, do the righteous thing and sound the clarion call.  Post away!
Yes, Ms. Jackie, by their works, you will know them.  Show us who you really are by the consistency of your behavior. 
.

[56] Posted by taomikael on 06-10-2007 at 02:41 PM • top

Oh my!  I must be doing something right again.  All this sarcasm from one who dislikes/distrusts Christians so much.  Sarah will be green with envy.  No Sarah would never be green.  It would remind her of elves.  I must think on this.  Possibly between sets of the French Open she can enlighten us as to what color she prefers.

[57] Posted by JackieB on 06-10-2007 at 03:57 PM • top

I wish they would stop saying that she was “raised as a Catholic.”

KJS was “raised Catholic” the same way that John Spong was “raised Fundamentalist.”  It’s a convenient line to use to show how much more advanced and enlightened they are now compared to those who are still mired in the communities of that benighted past that they left behind in the sophisticated wisdom of pre-pubescence.

[58] Posted by William Witt on 06-10-2007 at 04:27 PM • top

On “Theodora Episcopa” and associated fantasies and pipe-dreams, see this delightful article:

http://trushare.com/71APR01/AP01HIDD.htm

[59] Posted by William Tighe on 06-10-2007 at 04:39 PM • top

As one who also has a Roman Catholic ‘raising’ and an Evangelical nurture it would only seem fair that folk of the PB’s and Bishop Spong’s present theological persuasions be rightly called regression when viewed in relationship to those rich spiritualities.

[60] Posted by paddy c on 06-10-2007 at 04:51 PM • top

Catholic Mom,
I don’t know what your problem is about KJS being “raised Catholic” even if she didn’t step foot in a Catholic church after the age of 9 and her parents became heretics thereafter.
The woman went to a convent school before the implementation of Vatican II. Is she was 9 she was there until 4th grade. Old enough to make her first confession, first communion, no doubt go to Mass every Sunday and first Friday and all the laws that were required to be followed by a young mind.
I was a lad in the Archdiocese of NY and I can remember exactly when Vatican II was implemented in my parish. The Domincan nuns in my Catholic school changed their habits and the Tridentine altar was changed to the Table.
I was about 9.
I remember to this day, waiting outside the church, terrified before my first confession.
I would say this woman was “raised” a Roman Catholic. Of course, confirmation is a couple of years later but that’s windowdressing.
All this certainly leaves one with vivid memories.
And you know as well as I do that the vast majority of Catholics who did not go to Catholic school are not “raised” in any sense after 9 except to go to Mass and maybe be confirmed.
At least, not in New York City, a proverbial hotbed of Catholicism.

[61] Posted by LA Anglican on 06-10-2007 at 04:52 PM • top

I would say this woman was “raised” a Roman Catholic. Of course, confirmation is a couple of years later but that’s windowdressing.

So your main knowledge of Catholic theology and tradition comes from your preparation for 1st Communion at age 7?  With all due respect, you did not then get a whole lot.  I respectively submit that confirmation is NOT “windowdressing.”  In fact, I went to catechism class for YEARS before my confirmation.  It was the preparation for 1st communion that was, in some respect, “window dressing” in the sense that you are trying to pass on as much of a 2,000 year old extremely rich theology and tradition as you can to a bunch of 7 year olds, which is limited.


And you know as well as I do that the vast majority of Catholics who did not go to Catholic school are not “raised” in any sense after 9 except to go to Mass and maybe be confirmed.
At least, not in New York City, a proverbial hotbed of Catholicism.

Sorry—again I’ve got to disagree.  I did not attend parochial school and neither do my kids.  I got a TON of Catholic education not only at church but also from my parents.  My mom prayed the rosary with me, we had a picture of the Pope over the television set (got scratched by the rabbit ears), a crucifix on every bedroom wall, a statue of the Virgin and Child on my chest-of-drawers.  BTW, I’m not saying that pictures of the Pope and statues of the Virgin constitute Catholic education—just that I grew up in a home where the saints were venerated and the hierarchy was respected.  How Catholic was KJS’s home if her parents split from the Church when she was 9?  I would also suggest that, even without formal Catholic education, going to Mass every week your entire life and actually listening to the homily also provides a reasonable exposure to Catholic life.  I’m not sure how much you get out of a homily at age 9.

My kids go to Catholic education 1 hour a week starting in kindergarten and are required to do so every year until they are confirmed.  In fact, they’re going to Catholic “day camp” for two weeks this summer to fulfill their requirement for all of next year.  And, of course, I would like to think that I provide at home some kind of intelligent discussion and context for what they’re learning.

KJS was “raised Catholic” the same way that John Spong was “raised Fundamentalist.” It’s a convenient line to use to show how much more advanced and enlightened they are now compared to those who are still mired in the communities of that benighted past that they left behind in the sophisticated wisdom of pre-pubescence.

It may be the KJS actually soaked up a lot more Catholic education than I think.  In fact, in one interview I think I heard her say that she went to a Sacred Heart school and it’s hard for me to believe that anybody could spend any time with the fabulous Sacred Heart sisters (whom she admits she admires even now) and not learn SOMETHING.  Still…they say about the Irish that even the atheists are either Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists.  In other words, when you’re raised in a strong tradition, whatever it is, you reflect it in your thinking and speaking, even when you’re rejecting it.  KJS sounds like somebody who was raised as a Unitarian and read a book about Christianity when she was in college and thought it was cool.  I think she says she was “raised Catholic” to give the impression that she comes from a rich spiritual tradition which she has simply evolved to a higher level.  Like an Orthodox Jew who had studied Torah and Talmud for years could more creditably preach a “reformed” Judaism than could somebody from a secular background who wouldn’t know a Torah from a Tuba.

However—I could be totally wrong.  Perhaps someday somebody will actually ask her a question that will reveal the depths or shallows of her “Catholic upbringing.”

[62] Posted by Catholic Mom on 06-10-2007 at 06:39 PM • top

Well, by all accounts +KJS’s mother was a religious women; her father (still alive and on his third wife after two divorces) and siblings rarely go to church at all.  I don’t know why they left Catholicism for PECUSA, but evidently Elaine Ryan (+KJS’s mother) realized about 15 years later that she had made a mistake, and when ECUSA embraced WO she left for Orthodoxy (which is when papa divorced her).  In fact, she was preparing to become an Orthodox nun when she had the plane crash that incapacitated her.  And the story has already been told about how, after he rkother’s death ca. 1998 KJS “hijacked” the corpse and would allow her neither an Orthodox funeral nor burial.  Some mother, some daughter!

[63] Posted by William Tighe on 06-10-2007 at 07:08 PM • top

Catholic Mom,
I’m not going to compare Catholic pedigree with you. And no, 7 years old was not all my Catholic education. It was more like parochiol school with the Dominicans, minor seminary with the Franciscans and a catholic university with the Vincentians, with a younger brother who was a professed religious in the Franciscan Order.
KJS was certainly grounded in your True Religion. That is all I’m saying. And I didn’t become a “card carrying Protestant” until the age of 32.
Your story and the way you raise your children in your faith, to me, is very atypical.
And as to her mother’s alleged heresies, my mother didn’t give a wit about the laws of the Church until I decided to go to minor seminary. Then she became the original “born again” Catholic.
So KJS was certainly capable on her own, to raise herself in the Catholic Religion with the help of the good nuns and whatever sanctifying grace she could receive.
Then again, why are you so bothered by her being referred to in this way? She’s our heretic. As Jimmy Breslin once wrote: “Once a Catholic always a Catholic”.

[64] Posted by LA Anglican on 06-10-2007 at 07:48 PM • top

Catholic Mom,
I guess I did try to compare pedigrees. So I’ll add baptized and married by the Jesuits. And my parish priest was Tom Hartman the Catholic half of “The God Squad.”
There’s plenty of raised Catholics out there who left (cafeteria Catholics are Protestants to me). Throw a rock in NYC and you’ll hit millions.

[65] Posted by LA Anglican on 06-10-2007 at 07:55 PM • top

I’m not going to compare Catholic pedigree with you. And no, 7 years old was not all my Catholic education.

I never said YOU weren’t raised a Catholic.  smileHowever, you said that most Catholics got little Catholic education beyond 1st Communion. 
However, your own “pedigree” seems to utterly refute this.

As Jimmy Breslin once wrote: “Once a Catholic always a Catholic”. 

My point exactly.  Or rather “once raised a Catholic, always thinks like a Catholic.”  [NB: This does not mean—“Once a Catholic, never leaves the Church.”] I’m not amazed that someone who claims to have been “raised Catholic” became a Protestant (or a Buddhist or anything else.)  I’m surprised that someone with such an utterly strange and idiosyncratic view of Christianity (plus what appears to be a lot of basic ignorance) claims to have been “raised Catholic.”

[66] Posted by Catholic Mom on 06-10-2007 at 08:13 PM • top

I’m going to have to agree with Catholic Mom. I was sent to Catholic school for my third grade (repeated). I noticed the difference immediately but it was not until the fifth grade that there where significant theological differences taught. Confirmation is a huge deal in RCC, it was also in my Anglo-Catholic parish, so she has VERY valid points.

Also, LA Anglican, I’d agree there are many Cafeteria Catholics, Hatch-match-dispatch Catholics, “I can sin on Friday night, because confession is on Saturday for Mass on Sunday” Catholics ... but we have to cut them a little room, after all that like them holding us Anglicans for ++KJS actions and theology ... oh wait ...  confused

[67] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 06-10-2007 at 08:26 PM • top

Now that we are all off topic, the local RC parishes seem to confirm the kids quite young now.  I believe they are now confirming them in second grade right along with their first communion.  Is this the norm now?  I ask because the RC’s I work with say it used to be much older, say 8th or 9th grade.

[68] Posted by Nevin on 06-10-2007 at 08:36 PM • top

Sorry LA Anglican, I realize now that you said it was kids that DIDN’T go to parochial school that didn’t get much Catholic education beyond 1st Communion.  Well…my comments still stand.  Maybe I’m an anomaly because all my sibs went to Catholic school?  smile  But I can tell you that as of right now (at least in my parish) there is a very rigorous requirement for Confirmation.  Not only do you have to go to a special prep class for one full year beforehand, you must have gone to CCD (or study fast at home and take a test that shows that you got it all) for all years from kindergarten to 8th grade.

[69] Posted by Catholic Mom on 06-10-2007 at 08:41 PM • top

Nevin -It was 8th grade in the eighties, it probably still 8th grade in Dio of Arlington ( I’ve heard the bishop very conservative here).

[70] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 06-10-2007 at 08:43 PM • top

Confirmation is when you are 13, it hasn’t changed in many years and it’s not a local option other than to raise it.

[71] Posted by Rocks on 06-10-2007 at 10:05 PM • top

if this is a no-whining no-freak-out zone, why did you post babyblue’s remarks? 

the only thing babyblue’s remarks prove is that she doesn’t approve of Katherine Jefferts Schori. i learned a long time ago that if somebody doesn’t like me, nothing i say can please them.  likewise nothing +KJS says will ever please babyblue.

I believe gays and lesbians (including those in life-partnered relationships) can live lives of holiness.  The question is, how long can they stay in that crucified place, that voluntary suffering of injustice for the sake of the tender conscious of the reasserters?

[72] Posted by badger539 on 06-10-2007 at 11:25 PM • top

The question is, how long can they stay in that crucified place, that voluntary suffering of injustice for the sake of the tender conscious of the reasserters?

If you think doing what a church believes God asks is an injustice
why are you going to the church in the first place?

[73] Posted by Rocks on 06-11-2007 at 12:56 AM • top

if this is a no-whining no-freak-out zone, why did you post babyblue’s remarks? 

Like most news reported here, I always imagine (as I’m reading) that I’ll look over my shoulder at the person doing the reading, and see the speaker with a grin and a twinkle in his or her eye.  Sort of like, “I am only kidding!”

But 99.999% of the time, there’s no grin, and no twinkle.  That’s the wretched world we live in.  When one recounts the facts, they can look like a rant to someone.  Me?  I think BabyBlue’s comments look more like Martha Stewart reading off a cake recipe. 

the only thing babyblue’s remarks prove is that she doesn’t approve of Katherine Jefferts Schori. i learned a long time ago that if somebody doesn’t like me, nothing i say can please them.  likewise nothing +KJS says will ever please babyblue.

Things that KJS could say that would please both BB and myself:

“I’m a heretic.”  or,
“I resign.” or,
“Jesus is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life, and NOONE gets to the Father but by Him.”  or,
“ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz,”  or
“Since my teachings are out of line, I cannot in good conscience cash my paycheck.  I’ve therefore accepted a job in my field (marine biology), where I intend to make an honest living from now on.”  or
“I repent of TEC’s breaching of the bonds of affection within the Anglican Communion.”  or
“Lawsuits between Christians are immoral.  Also, the parishes that are leaving belong to Christ, not to TEC.  Therefore, TEC shall cease and desist from all lawsuits against parishes and diocese that want to leave TEC, from this point onward.”  or,
“There is no such thing as homosexual ‘marriage’ .” 
(etc)

I believe gays and lesbians (including those in life-partnered relationships) can live lives of holiness.

 

I believe the same for murderers, rapists, prostitutes, and armed robbers.  That is, they can certainly lead lives of holiness, if they give up their sins.  C.f., Matt. 21:28-32

The question is, how long can they stay in that crucified place, that voluntary suffering of injustice for the sake of the tender conscious of the reasserters?

Where in the Bible does it talk about crucifixion as merely a voluntary suffering of injustice?  Could you show me? 

I do see however, Scripture speaking of Christ’s crucifixion in terms of atonement (Rom. 4:25).  And for us, I see Scripture speaking of in terms of putting off our sinful nature (Rom. 6:6, Gal. 5:24).

[74] Posted by J Eppinga on 06-11-2007 at 03:59 AM • top

Thankfully, KJS will not say those things, because she doesn’t believe them - and there is no reason why she should, as she leads a theologically liberal church

[75] Posted by Merseymike on 06-11-2007 at 04:05 AM • top

How do you know she doesn’t snore?  Even my 15-month-old girl snores.  Golly MM, I think you’re reaching.  smile

[76] Posted by J Eppinga on 06-11-2007 at 04:09 AM • top

Apart from the dull patch about origins (raised Church of Rome) and the daft argument about what one has been (scientist) having any bearing on what one is (being illogical), I am glad I read the comments rather than watch the video (stomach intact).  By the way, FrankV, thanks for “...enough to gag a maggot!”  May I use it elsewhere?  As for Anglican Paplist, you make a good point though Greg was probably right to do you for the “squid” thing…..funny though.

However,  Does any of this help us keep our eye on the main thing….. Much better that our churches are filled with people who believe the truth and live lives of love toward oneanother.  1 John 5:10-12.

L’Chaim!  Ifan Morgan….

[77] Posted by Ifan Morgan on 06-11-2007 at 07:21 AM • top

Glad to hear that BB is a “dedicated fan” of Harry Potter.  I’d love to read some of the posts hereabouts if it came out that Bishop Schori was in the same boat.

[78] Posted by Lapinbizarre on 06-11-2007 at 08:38 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 about the crisis in our church. 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. 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 that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.