Total visitors right now: 142

Logged-in members:

John Boyland
Katherine
tjmcmahon

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Elizabeth Kaeton: On Feminism, Motherhood, and Infanticide

Sunday, July 8, 2007 • 10:38 pm

On The Rev. Anne Kennedy: “I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home.”


UPDATE: For those wishing to express their concern over The Rev. Kaeton’s remarks, here is some relevant contact information:

Bishop of Newark:

The Rt. Rev. Mark Beckwith
31 Mulberry Street
Newark NJ 07102
Bishop’s Office: 973-430-9976

Standing Committee:

Ms. Cheryl Brocking
86 Roosevelt Avenue, Belleville NJ 07109
     
The Rev. Kim Capwell
33 Kadel Drive, Mt. Arlington NJ 07856
       
The Rev. Dr. Cathy Deats
10 Schoolhouse Lane,
Flanders NJ 07836        

Ms. Martha Gardner
12 Bowdoin Street,
Maplewood NJ 07040
     
The Rev. Margaret (Maggie) Gat
61 Baker Avenue, Dover NJ 07801

Ms. Patrice Henderson
344 North Ridgewood Road, South Orange NJ 07079

Mr. Robert Simmons
One Cobane Terrace, West Orange NJ 07052

Ms. Diane Sammons, Chancellor
25 Arcularius Terrace, Maplewood NJ 07040

Michael F. Rehill, Esq. Chancellor-Emeritus
PO Box 714, Westwood NJ 07675

General diocesan contact info:

Episcopal Diocese of Newark
31 Mulberry Street, Newark NJ 07102

Switchboard: 973-622-4306


The Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton was recently reflecting on her granddaughter’s 6th birthday. She had sent her granddaughter flowers, and the little girl had called back to thank her. This is part of the conversation that ensued:

“Have you given any thought to what you want to be when you grow up?” I asked.

“Well, um . . .yes, actually, I have,” she answered.

“Well, um, most of all, I want to be kind. Mommy says the world doesn’t have enough kind people, so I want to be kind. And generous. Daddy says that we should always try to be generous. You know . . . Do you know what generous means, Nana?”

The conversation continues:

I don’ know why I continued to be surprised by anything this child says, but her response stunned me into momentary silence, which Mackie heard loud and clear.

Rushing to my aid, she continued, “But, well, I already know ONE thing I want to be when I grow up. Do you know what that is?”

“No, sweetheart, why don’t you tell me?”

“Well, I already know that I want to be a Mommy, just like my Mommy.”

“Really?” I said, surprised at the slow rise of disappointment I could feel welling up in my stomach.

“Yes. I can’t think of a better thing to be than to be a good Mommy, just like my Mommy. And then, you know what, Nana?”

“No, what?”

“Then, I can grow up to be a really good Nana, just like YOU! And, you are the BEST Nana anyone could ever have!”

I swear to God, if Jesus had come to take me home in that very moment, I would have left this life a deliriously happy woman.

So Kaeton’s granddaughter wants to be a mommy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, as Kaeton quickly insists.

What follows is a pretty standard reverie on feminism, and eventually she winds her way around to those women who oppose what has become known as the “feminist movement”:

There are actual websites like “Ladies Against Feminism” with helpful articles on “Humility” and “Thoughts on Masculine Leadership and Feminism.” There are actual pictures of women who have made their own “modest” dresses (no slacks for these feminine followers of Jesus, oh no!), with pictures of them going through their day, doing the laundry, making the bed, doing crafts.

Other sites are more of the same, “Joyful Momma,” and “Family Renewal Ministries,” - all chock-a-block full of helpful information and support for “the little woman.”

As I said, pretty standard stuff: Kaeton wouldn’t be Kaeton if she weren’t deriding those who weren’t 100% on the feminist bandwagon… especially other women.

But then, her essay takes a very disturbing turn.

Before I post the excerpt, let me say that here at Stand Firm we like to push boundaries, and we especially like pushing the boundaries of weblog commentary. It’s even codified into our comment policy at the bottom of every page. But what Elizabeth Kaeton proceeded to write about Anne Kennedy, Matt’s wife as well as a fellow ordained Episcopal priest, shocked even us:

There is one woman, an Episcopal priest married to an Episcopal priest, whose writing sometimes flat out scares the BeJesus out of me. She is pregnant with their fourth child, the youngest of whom is not yet one year old. They are using “Natural Family Planning” - letting “God decide” on how many children they will be blessed with and resigning themselves to gladly take whatever God gives them, giving God the praise and glory.

She gets lots of support from women who have made similar choices, all giddy with what they describe as Christian love and the Holy Ghost. Everyone seems positively ecstatic about this new pregnancy while this poor woman writes about how she doesn’t have the energy to clean her house or herself or her children whom, she muses with mild curiosity, might get their feet cut on the cereal bowl one of them smashed this morning which she simply hasn’t had the inclination to clean up.

The women commenting on this have nothing but giddy high praise for her. I can only read so much before I have to reach for some dry crackers. Apparently, you can experience “morning sickness” by proxy.

Umm . . .Can you say, “Irresponsible?”

Okay, then. How about “Madness”?

Don’t believe me? Think I’m overstating my case? Well, after reading a few of her entries, I have seriously considered calling the local authorities.

I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home.

Of course, she’ll say that “God told her” to do it. Postpartum depression will be the postmodern villain. From the days even before Lizzie Borden, female hormones have always been an easy scapegoat. If the writers of Genesis had known about them, PMS would have been specifically named as one of the results of “The Fall.”

Neighbors and church members will appear on the five o’clock news and say what a “lovely family” they were and how shocked, (SHOCKED!) they all are. One woman will shake her head sadly and say how her husband was “devoted” to her and the children. Another will wipe a tear from her eye and report that they were such “committed Christians” who were dedicated to “home schooling” their kids. And I can guarantee that someone from her church will opine that there is so much pressure from “those feminists” to pull families like this apart.

At the precise moment at which someone says something about “the power of Satan” is exactly the point when I’ll throw up my hands and run screaming from the room. Let me tell you something: This woman doesn’t title her Blog, “an undercurrent of hostility” for nothing.

In fact, you know what? That hostility is the only thing that gives me hope. Right now, it’s misdirected against feminists and liberals and everyone in the Episcopal Church who doesn’t march, lock-step to “Onward, Christian soldier,” but she’s smart enough to know better.

I know she is. She knows she is. I just pray she gets the courage to push through the heavy fog of the false sense of nobility which has become the warm-fuzzy blanket she pulls around her to ward off the insecurities whispered in her ear by her . . . um . . . “religion.”

This post was up on Kaeton’s website for 4 hours during the afternoon of July 8, long enough to garner commentary from readers. At some point, though, she edited the post to remove the references to child-murder. afterwards, at least one more revision was made; what is at least the third version of the post is what is online as I write this.

What kind of person thinks these sorts of thoughts, but keeps them to herself? What kind of person actually gives voice to thoughts like these, but only to trusted confidants in the strictest privacy?

I have my ideas, but at the moment I can think of only two things: First, we now know, without a doubt, what kind of person doesn’t just think such things, or say such things in private, but actually writes such things on a public blog for the world to see; and it is an ordained Episcopal priest in Newark, New Jersey.

And second, what must be going through the minds of Anne and Matt Kennedy, as they tucked their beloved children into bed tonight after reading this?

Rev. Kaeton, you have crossed a line with your remarks. In my prayers tonight I will ask God to help you know what to do next, and I am certain it doesn’t end with simply making a couple of revisions to a blog post.


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

wow…that’s sick. And I thought that I got too riled up on my blog…

[1] Posted by MattJP on 07-08-2007 at 11:25 PM • top

Greg—She is not only an ordained priest in this Diocese, and the rector of a parish, but also the <b>President of the Standing Committee<>/b>.  Her brand of venom is very much in favor around here.

While Anne and Matt do God’s work in an economically struggling community, Ms. Kaeton has a cushy job, driving down St. Paul’s ASA in one of New Jersey’s wealthier townships (avg. median income $106,000).  As we all know, Elizabeth Kaeton is not worthy so much as to wash Anne Kennedy’s floor.

[2] Posted by In Newark on 07-08-2007 at 11:31 PM • top

Sorry about the formatting—didn’t mean all of that to be in bold.

[3] Posted by In Newark on 07-08-2007 at 11:36 PM • top

First of all Congratulations to Matt+ & Anne on your new one in process! smile And I too pray that you both cling to our Lord and Savior while dealing with this vile individual who is not worthy of the collar that she wears in representation of our God! I ask that God have mercy on her and reveal to her the real damage she can do and has done with this reprehensible verbiage! This woman needs help in a huge way!
I have never been in favor of the feminism movement, womens liberation, etc… for various reasons all of what we are reaping now in job salaries, econimic fallout from it and the part it plays in the break down witihin the family, and the list goes on. But….I am very old fashioned for a 48 year old mother of three + 2!  But, this woman is a disgrace to not only the female gender but to the priesthood and the Church most of all!

[4] Posted by TLDillon on 07-08-2007 at 11:47 PM • top

I am so offended by Mrs. Kaeton’s post.  And she is a priest?  There is no higher calling for a woman than to raise her family in a Christian home.  I find it even more offensive that Kaeton goes on to show how HER daughter is DOING it right, you know with a job that “means” something. 
I am wondering if her bishop has read this garbage.  Are priests in the Diocese of Newark allowed to openly issue such slanderous libel without challenge?  Let’s hope her fellow priests at least decide not to erect a wall of collars that defend this disgusting behavior.
I know Matt and Anne are not litigious but they might want to give their legal options here some serious consideration.

[5] Posted by JackieB on 07-08-2007 at 11:50 PM • top

Gee willakers, Mama Liz!  I thought you were Pro-Choice!  Oh, yeah, that just counts for folks that choose to agree with you.  I keep forgetting!  Folks, can you believe that a priest in God’s Church would go on such a tirade at the idea of a woman loving her children, or of a mother (her own daughter!) serving as a positive role model for motherhood?  Nope.  Me neither.  Makes ya wanna cry.

While I’m here, please, y’all, add your own comments to Katharine’s homily about baptism on link   I added a few smart remarks, but I know there’s a heap smarter folks on this site!

[6] Posted by Robert Easter on 07-08-2007 at 11:51 PM • top

If I remember rightly she was up in arms a while ago about a post on a reasserter blog demanding that it be retracted and an apology issued (which it was).

I think what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  An proper apology and a withdrawal of the post would be the appropriate response.

Indeed, it’s insulting for more that just you guys.  My wife is a priest (not that has anything to do with it other than I understand exactly where you are coming from), we have four children, and yes we home-school too. Yeah, it’s a ton of work, and often for very little reward.  But it’s all a blessing I never regret, not even when particularly tired and grumpy.

The problem with this type of post is it goes beyond the blog battles and gets vitriolic and nasty.  It’s a hit directly at home - personal and intentionally so.

I don’t know whether an apology will be forthcoming, I would hope so.  In either case, perhaps forgiveness is the best response.  I offer mine.

[7] Posted by Peter on 07-08-2007 at 11:54 PM • top

Wow!  Whatever happened to the idea that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world?  I believe that for a woman motherhood is the highest calling. 

As a mom who stayed at home with her children until after they graduated from high school (yes, we homeschooled too!) I must admit that being a full-time mother was not easy, but just like the Christian walk in general, it has some wonderful rewards.  My husband has been blessed with a steady job for the same company for over 25 years so we were able to make do on one income.  But we made plenty of sacrifices in those early years.  After seven years of marriage we were finally able to afford to buy our first home in an older neighborhood of Dallas.  It was not quite 1000 sq. ft., with two bedrooms, one bath, and a one car garage.  (Of course much of that time we only had one car anyway!)  Still I wouldn’t trade what we had (or didn’t have) for anything.  We still are a close-knit family and my husband and I are about to celebrate thirty years of marriage. 

For that one mentally ill (or possibly demon-possessed) woman in a Houston suburb there are thousands of happy, healthy, and fulfilled mothers who receive no press coverage because they are busy raising their children and living their lives as God intended.  For the great majority of the time hormones work in favor of motherhood.  Prolactin, for example, is a wonderful calming thing as I’m sure Anne Kennedy knows.  When we use our bodies in the ways they were made to function (conception, childbirth, nursing, etc.) we have a much better chance of living healthier lives. 

Elizabeth Kaeton and her ilk certainly do not represent real women, in my opinion, at least not most of the women I know.  Anne Kennedy, on the other hand, I would love to have for a neighbor.  As a young grandmother, I would even be willing to babysit occasionally and swap mothering stories.  God bless you, Anne.  You must be doing the right thing because you’ve hit a nerve somewhere!  wink

[8] Posted by Jill C. on 07-09-2007 at 12:00 AM • top

I can’t remember when I have been more offended by an online post than the above one by Elizabeth Kaeton.  It is outrageous and borders on slander.  Who is her bishop?  I shall send it to him (her?) myself.  We cannot, simply cannot write things like this about it each other.  The witness it presents convinces no one of Christianity or of even being human toward one another.  I can only think of how the early Christians were known for their love for each other…how far we have fallen.  I am appalled.
The Reverend Marcia King
Ocean Springs, MS

[9] Posted by Marcia King on 07-09-2007 at 12:07 AM • top

I read the revised Kaeton post first, and was struck at the time by several things, beyond the recognition that she appears to be repulsed by women having children.

First, there was this passage: “There are quite a few Blogs popping up these days, written by intelligent, well educated women, who love Jesus and their husbands and families who think that the only way to be a good Christian wife and mother is to sacrifice her career and aspirations to the higher vocation of family life.”

Actually, it’s not merely Christian wives and mothers who sacrifice such things . . . it’s the men, too.  A good “Christian husband and father sacrifices his career and aspirations to the higher vocation of family life” as well.  In fact, the one thing I’ve been most struck by in my conversations with fathers is their recognition that their careers would certainly have gone much farther and higher, and their vocational gifts far more developed without a family.  They recognize that it is nearly impossible to be a Great Writer, Great Tennis Player, Great Scientist, or Great Artist without the unrelenting focus, single-minded determination, time, and discipline to reach the heights of one’s gifts—and it is extremely challenging to do that while at the same time pouring in the time, money, and energy required to raise a healthy, functional, happy family.

It’s just hard to do both. 

And both women and men make that choice—usually joyfully, and often with some knowledge of just what they are sacrificing in career and development of gifts.  That’s really what it takes from both wife and husband in order to raise a family: sacrifice for a higher vocation of family life.

I’m a single woman, never married, with no children.  I’m aware that I’m unusual [fortunately for civilization], in that unlike normal women and men, I oddly haven’t had a desire for children.  I’m also on the record at this blog as not thinking that natural family planning is either natural or morally required.  And I attended grad school at the height of the postmodern feminist deconstructionist fad—which, since it was academia, was necessarily behind the actual societal fad which had already come and was preparing to be gone.

So my credibility is hopefully entirely established as a fairly abnormal woman [if anyone had had any doubts before], one that might well have naturally hurtled towards the third wave feminist agenda, but for the fact that I did not need another dominant religious worldview, since I had Christianity as my center that holds. . . . And let there be no doubt that a religion is precisely what feminism is . . . a central guiding foundational worldview around which everything else must whirl and submit to.

All of the above being said . . . I don’t understand the personal repulsion that Elizabeth Kaeton appears to have for Anne’s desire to have children.  This is a normal thing for Anne and most women and men.

I’ve only met Anne one time, and she struck me as a fun, laid back, witty, smart, fairly relaxed, humorous woman who is capable of doing something that is absolutely required when raising children—dealing with chaos.  I’ve been in enough homes with families that have anywhere from 2 to 10 children to recognize that dealing with just a single child is the equivalent in chaos-production, disorder, and noise level of raising 10 puppies—and that I am not gifted at “doing chaos”, as I learned while I raised one single small puppy.

But why pick on a woman who, while an ordained priest, and while functioning as an associate rector, and while writing witty posts on her utterly non-submissive and non-passive and aptly named blog, “An Undercurrent of Hostility”, also wishes to have children?

I suspect that, rather than being a woman whom Elizabeth Kaeton can despise and pity for being oppressed and ignorant, Anne is a woman who stands for everything Elizabeth Kaeton despises.  A free, well-adapted, independent, educated, articulate, funny woman who can make fun of herself, who has the gall of being traditional in theology, and who is a wife and mother.

After my musings about the revised post, I read the original passage about Anne that appears to be an extended flight of fantasy about Anne’s impending possible killing of her children, an action that I guess is supposed to be the natural end-result of an Episcopal female priest who is traditional in theology, rejects and articulates the problems with the progressive gospel, and wishes to have children.

Anne was correct in an earlier comment about this. Anybody can do anything immoral and wrong and corrupt.  No one is beyond committing terrible sins in the course of a lifetime.  But I am sorry that someone chose to speculate so freely about Anne in a public cyberspace.

I am sorry for Anne, and Matt. 

It’s frankly not really adequately “respondable-to” by the Kennedy family, and so I hope that they will take comfort from their friends’ expression of deep outrage over this harmful and insulting and extensive and public and bizarre speculation about possible future murderous actions by one of the Kennedy parents.

I can only imagine how stunned they must be.

[10] Posted by Sarah on 07-09-2007 at 12:18 AM • top

“And he will turn
    The hearts of the fathers to the children,
    And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
    Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.” (Malachi 4:6)  Until we learn to love the babies there will not be a blessing on our nation, church or selves.  Lord have mercy on that wretched woman and thanks to God for that other woman, Ann Kenedy

[11] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 07-09-2007 at 12:19 AM • top

Proof positive that all the Political Left’s blather about “diversity” and how much they love it is nothing more than sheer hypocrisy. The only “diversity” they love is the type of behavior which affirms and agrees with their chosen biases. Nothing more, nothing less.

All the overblown rhetoric about “inclusion” and “affirmation” is just the sound of vacuous wind making random noises as noxious fumes belch forth from their various orifices. It is meaningless babbles, meant to convince themselves of how loving and right-minded they are.

May God have mercy on Mother Kaeton. She is fortunate that God is God and that I am not. I will now have to pray for my forgiveness for the low esteem in which I hold this supposed priest in the Episcopal Church. Mother Kaeton is an example of why ordaining women was not such a bright idea.

[12] Posted by Allen Lewis on 07-09-2007 at 12:20 AM • top

You can’t hold a nutcase like Kaeton to account. And that’s how bad things are in TEC—the nutcases are indeed running the asylum. President of the Standing Committee indeed. Weirdness! I used to think it was something respectable and dignified to be on the Standing Committee.

We spend our time in here everyday observing and dissecting the TEC abomination du jour. I don’t have to wait for something new tomorrow. It’s time we conceded that TEC can’t be salvaged.

We MUST take steps to establish an orthodox jurisdiction of our own.

[13] Posted by henryleroi on 07-09-2007 at 12:22 AM • top

This can be used as an example to show moderates the kind of ‘sanctification’ liberal theology tends towards. I mean, if your hermeneutic is: ‘rationalize away anything you like’, then why not blow away ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’. It’s open to many different interpretations, isn’t it?

[14] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 07-09-2007 at 12:36 AM • top

Elizabeth Kaeton’s grandaughter tells her Nana:

“Well, I already know that I want to be a Mommy, just like my Mommy.”

Ms. Kaeton’s reaction:
<blockquote?“Really?” I [Kaeton] said, surprised at the slow rise of disappointment I could feel welling up in my stomach.</blockquote>

Seems to me that Ms. Kaeton’s self-described reaction of disappointment when confronted by her granddaughter’s desire to be a “Mommy” is all of a piece with the liberal/reappraiser/GLBT aversion to “breeders”.  It is a striking reminder of KJS’ comments on how Piskies are so educated, they don’t reproduce at the rate of Cathliks, Mormons, etc.

I can only hope that Ms. Kaeton was delirious on her pain meds when she spouted such vile tripe about Anne Kennedy. It seems revealing of deep feelings, but I remember when my late mother said extraordinarly outrageous things, that were otherwise uncharacteristic of her, when she was in the midst of a psychotic reaction to Demerol.  But pain meds or no, what Ms. Kaeton published is horrible.

God bless you, Anne and Matt, in your vocation as Christian parents.

[15] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 07-09-2007 at 01:03 AM • top

This is libelous and scandalous; something must be done about it. That blog needs to be shut down and Ms. Kaeton (sorry, but I can’t call that person a “reverend”) must be censured. This isn’t “fair comment,” it’s a vicious, unprovoked, personal attack that probably is linked on every “reappraiser” blog and website. I don’t know how the Kennedys might feel about legal action, but I think it should be a consideration!

[16] Posted by teatime on 07-09-2007 at 01:19 AM • top

I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake.

Well at least we know there is something a reappraiser will swear to God about. I doubt there is anything in the Bible they would swear to.

Besides how appalling this rant is, and it’s quite appalling,  the idea that she must have known who this was she was writing about jumps to mind. She certainly knows about Standfirm, knows who Matt is and read Anne’s blog. She must have made the connection.  Did she think this was ok because she was sure these people were just some awful fundamentalists and everyone knows they are evil? Or was this just something else that was supposed to pass “under the radar”? Perhaps FrJake will appear shortly to remind us how she has a bad back and is working through things and what asshats one is to actual think people mean what they say when they say it publicly? It’s just a blog after all. Yada, yada, yada…..

To the Kennedys I would say: “Discretion of speech is more than eloquence, and to speak agreeably to him with whom we deal is more than to speak in good words, or in good order.” – Francis Bacon

Discretion after such an outrage is a lot to ask I know but perhaps you will instead see it as being blessed enough that people actually respect you, your family and your reputations and would not care to see it sullied engaging such tripe as this.
Respond if you must but don’t let it be “in kind”.  You aren’t her kind, don’t stoop to become so.

[17] Posted by Rocks on 07-09-2007 at 01:21 AM • top

Dear Matt and Anne,

Many blessings on you and your family as you await the birth of a new child.  May he or she be reared up for the glory of God.  I know the evil words of Elizabeth Keaton be vanquished by the power of Christ and your faith in Him.  May the guardian Angels of all your children be ever at their side.  Protecting them against all spiritual enemies.  May Christ be in the words and deeds of all you meet.

St. Patricks Breastplate is a prayer which is invoked against evil.  Keaton’s words are beyond foul they are evil so I post this prayer for you and your children.

Lorica of Saint Patrick
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through a belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
Of the Creator of creation.

I arise today
Through the strength of Christ’s birth and His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion and His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection and His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.

I arise today
Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In obedience of angels,
In service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In preachings of the apostles,
In faiths of confessors,
In innocence of virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.

I arise today
Through the strength of heaven;
Light of the sun,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of the wind,
Depth of the sea,
Stability of the earth,
Firmness of the rock.

I arise today
Through God’s strength to pilot me;
God’s might to uphold me,
God’s wisdom to guide me,
God’s eye to look before me,
God’s ear to hear me,
God’s word to speak for me,
God’s hand to guard me,
God’s way to lie before me,
God’s shield to protect me,
God’s hosts to save me
From snares of the devil,
From temptations of vices,
From every one who desires me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone or in a mulitude.

I summon today all these powers between me and evil,
Against every cruel merciless power that opposes my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of women and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man’s body and soul.
Christ shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that reward may come to me in abundance.

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks of me,
Christ in the eye that sees me,
Christ in the ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through a belief in the Threeness,
Through a confession of the Oneness
Of the Creator of creation

St. Patrick (ca. 377

[18] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 07-09-2007 at 01:21 AM • top

Kaeton’s article might tempt some to reply in the words of Père Derrière-Chapeau:

“You don’t give a damn who you hurt, whose reputation you trash, as long as you get to throw a little more mud on [orthodox Anglicans].  People are expendable if they can be used to further your cause.”
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4233/#77658

But don’t hold your breath waiting for Père Derrière to blast Kaeton.

[19] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 01:23 AM • top

Keaton’s evil post is another illustration why the two sides of this great divide need to seperate and soon.  There is great darkness from where she writes. 

As things escalate, lay people are being sued, people are feeling trapped and frustrated and people make incendiary comments.  I worry about people with emotional or psychological problems who become influenced by rhetorical debates on the web or other media. Perhaps attention should shift from exposing the never ending heresy and apostacy of individuals in TEC to a more positive approach toward the future of a new Anglicanism.

[20] Posted by Going Home on 07-09-2007 at 01:49 AM • top

Elizabeth Kaeton is a sick woman and in serious need of professional help.  Her brand of twisted hatred is not only repulsive but destructive to her and those around her.  One only hopes she quickly resigns from the priesthood and gets some counseling very soon.  Of course, for her to take these actions, she needs to first recognize her sickness.  She also needs to repent and apologize publicly to Matt and Anne. Alas, that may be beyond her capacity.

[21] Posted by PapaJ on 07-09-2007 at 02:55 AM • top

Im not an Episcopalian any more,Im not anything,but thats not the point. that womens remarks,make me glad Im not. If she were truly concerned she would have talked to her one to one.and if this an example of what happens when women become priests,whoa,I dont want part of that.And when people like me are looking for somewhere to worship,and we read that,It just makes me sad for all of us.And I thought I had problems.Better clean this mess up.

[22] Posted by carolf270 on 07-09-2007 at 02:57 AM • top

It sounds like Ms. Kaeton should be washing feet from here to kingdom come.  How can she be a servant of the Lord when such hateful things come out of her mouth or in this case from her keyboard?  She is a disgrace to the priesthood.  I am glad I have left the nest of vipers which ecusa seems to be rapidly becoming.  She is mean, spiteful and vile and comes across as enjoying being that way.  And, people wonder why we say the church has changed and left us!

[23] Posted by carol on 07-09-2007 at 03:23 AM • top

Maybe I’m jaded or numb, but I don’t understand the outrage of this. It’s childish and shouldn’t be that upsetting. It’s like dealing with a flasher. You call the cops, it’s disgusting and depressing, but it’s not really that significant. She’s a remote troll, and the mind of a troll will wander anywhere to elicit a reaction.

[24] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 07-09-2007 at 03:57 AM • top

A recent post contained this tidbit about Kaeton:

“Advent was founded in the first half of the 19th century, and was housed in an unusual clapboard church which sat on a rather large piece of property. During the baby-boom years, the congregation expanded and built a seperate, modern church on the rest of the property. Under Bishop Spong, the traditionally minded congregation shrank, and retreated to the original church building.

Even this vestige of tradtionalism had to be wiped out. While the parish was more than willing for the diocese to sell off the larger part of the property, the Diocese insisted that the old building had to be put up for sale,too. The parish was declared extinct, and sold to an evangelical church.

The proceeds from the sale were $531,000. Almost one-third of this amount was used to buy a house for the “Oasis Missioner”. Oasis is the GLBT ministry of the diocese; at that time the missioner was Elizabeth Kaeton, one of the most radical priests in ECUSA. Most of the remaining money was used to help construction costs at the Diocese’s new headquarters.”

[25] Posted by rob-roy on 07-09-2007 at 04:03 AM • top

You people are waaay ahead of me….I had a hard time getting past the fact of a “Nana” sending a 6-YEAR-OLD flowers for a birthday present, and the 6-year old calling to thank her….  Does no one else find that more than strange?  I have a 6-year old, and imagining one of her grandmothers sending her FLOWERS for her birthday is plain old weird.
Thank you Paul Loughlin for the beaytiful prayer.  It was the first time I could take a breath, in reading all of this, and it really helped dispel some of the evil fog of Kaeton’s writing….

[26] Posted by HeartAfire on 07-09-2007 at 04:42 AM • top

Meant “beautiful”.....  and it was.

[27] Posted by HeartAfire on 07-09-2007 at 04:43 AM • top

you dont understand the importance of this?I alwasys thought it sad when people paid more attention to athelets,or movie stars,and theydo.people need examples to follow,but were talking about a priest here,with,I assume,a congregation,Iwas a Episcopalian,christned,communed, Icant remember anyone talking like that.But shes got people listening to her, following her. I talk to God,just like you do,thats just not the same message im getting.Pretty poor example of love,  I thought,

[28] Posted by carolf270 on 07-09-2007 at 04:53 AM • top

HeartAfire
I agree with you about the flowers—might be appropriate for a 16 year old, but for a 6 year old?
I don’t think she took time to consider the recipient.

[29] Posted by MargaretG on 07-09-2007 at 05:17 AM • top

Maybe I’m jaded or numb, but I don’t understand the outrage of this. It’s childish and shouldn’t be that upsetting. It’s like dealing with a flasher. You call the cops, it’s disgusting and depressing, but it’s not really that significant. She’s a remote troll, and the mind of a troll will wander anywhere to elicit a reaction.

No surprise: you are jaded and numb. Not your fault, of course. There’s an endlessness about all this that leads to exhaustion of the spirit.

The explanation for the fuss is that these people are rarely so transparent. Sometimes we have to infer things about them. On other occasions, like this one, it’s like watching the Exorcist. Yes, we always believed it was this bad, but we never thought to elicit a full confession. I mean, this isn’t Law and Order.

[30] Posted by henryleroi on 07-09-2007 at 05:25 AM • top

HeartAfire
I agree with you about the flowers—might be appropriate for a 16 year old, but for a 6 year old?
I don’t think she took time to consider the recipient.

to be fair, I don’t agree. Once I was working in Cyprus and went to visit an acquaintance of my mother’s. They had a 5 year old girl and I took 2 bunches of flowers - a big one for the wife and and small little bunch for the 5 year old. I’ve never seen a little girl smile so much (and I include my own).

They told me that the next week she was still admiring the wilted remains in their vase and refused to let her mother throw them away.

[31] Posted by David Ould on 07-09-2007 at 05:25 AM • top

Maybe, folks, just maybe, another priest needs to be inhibited.  And it sure isn’t Matt+ or Anne+. 

God’s peace, protection and blessings be on the entire Kennedy family.

[32] Posted by bigjimintx on 07-09-2007 at 06:12 AM • top

Anne,
I for one truly appreciate your vulnerable honesty on your blog.  Motherhood is just plain hard.  Motherhood of little ones harder and adding pregnancy on top of things creates its own insanities.  Please don’t tone it down in response to this!  There are so few smart, feminine priests who take motherhood as a vocation…
There are so many women who resonate with you.
Mrs. Nyssa

[33] Posted by Nyssa on 07-09-2007 at 06:24 AM • top

I continue to pray for the Rev Elizabeth Kaeton. I pray that one day she will learn to love and serve the Lord in humility and grace. I pray that she will learn to love her fellow men as well. I pray that she will one day enter the Kingdom of God and remain for the rest of her days.

[34] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 07-09-2007 at 06:26 AM • top

Well, as a former “Broad Episcopalian” maybe somebody can explain to me why one side of this isn’t just as loony as the other.

[35] Posted by Pilgrim on 07-09-2007 at 06:27 AM • top

I understand Keaton+‘s feminist theology all too well. It is offensive and repulsive, it demeans what God calls blessed and has little room for boys to grow up in. I’ll leave my thoughts at that less I say more than I should.

[36] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 07-09-2007 at 06:33 AM • top

This is to Ms. Kaeton and I say that because in Gods eyes you are what in the old testament and what Christ has stated as a false prophet. First let me say I hope and pray that God will someday show you His mercy as He has me. Secondly I am a very good friend to the Kennedy’s. If it were not for them I most probably would not be here to write this. I was and am a siiner and I have done some very evil things in my life but through God’s grace and the work of both Matt and Anne I am becoming a new person. Just so you know where I am at because of their help and God’s work I am going back to school at 50 years of age and when I am done if it is Gods will I will become an ordained priest. The one thing that the Kennedy’s have taught me so well is to read and understand all the Bible not just parts I like. You have violated a good part of it with what you have said. Just so you can understand if you do not know Spanish my nickname was given to me a long time ago and the first of it means gigalo and I keep that to remind me of how sinful I was. I will pray and I hope God will show you his mercy before it is too late. May God bless us all and show us all though His words what we need to do for Him.

[37] Posted by chulolee on 07-09-2007 at 06:34 AM • top

Please tell me there is something that can be done about this!!! And let me (us) know what what can do to end this sort of thing.  If I wrote something so vile on my blog about somebody in my profession I’d be walking out the door with my things by the end of the day.

[38] Posted by wdgreen340 on 07-09-2007 at 06:35 AM • top

Matt/Anne
“Blessed are you when men(and feminist)hate you, and when they exclude and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!  Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.
Luke 6:22 RSV
Be Blessed!

[39] Posted by Rev. J on 07-09-2007 at 06:38 AM • top

Liz?  You might want to have those cheap Canadian anti-depressants analyzed.  Something seems… off.

[40] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 07-09-2007 at 06:43 AM • top

The ultimate goal of feminism is the liberation of the human spirit.

That’s odd.  I thought that was the goal of the Author and Finisher of our salvation.  And I thought that this goal is already (and not yet) fulfilled, in Him. 

... perhaps Keaton would like to rephrase that ?  Along with some other wacky notions. 

I admit that I am both angry at and embarrassed for this poor woman.  However, I find that this anger and embarrassment is melting into mild amusement and pity.  Her chosen profession is meant to nip such heinious things (I won’t dignify what she said by repeating it) in the bud;  but she can’t even diagnose the patient correctly. 

Beyond-ridiculous has a new standard. 
And now, so does Beyond-incompetant.

[41] Posted by J Eppinga on 07-09-2007 at 06:46 AM • top

So, I’m mad and I go to this….person’s website and find this on the comment page.

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

Great way to ensure no one maligns you the way you malign others.

[42] Posted by wdgreen340 on 07-09-2007 at 06:47 AM • top

Sarah, I can tell you that finding a woman who is repulsed by the idea of having children is not as unusual as you might think.  I have even known them to be involved in apparently normal happy marriages—except no kids.  What I find incredulous is that a person like that would be involved in the ordained ministry.  A better church-related job for them would be the Salvation Army.  That’s a place where they could really compete with men and maybe accomplish something for the Lord at the same time! smirk

[43] Posted by GB on 07-09-2007 at 07:08 AM • top

I thank everyone for their responses, but I’d rather not get sidetracked in a discussion about the merits of having children, and if so, how many.

What we need to do is talk a little more about what the proper outcome of this should be. I think it’s only appropriate that, at a minimum, Bishop Mark Beckwith, the standing committee (of which, remember, Kaeton is president), and the executive committee of Newark receive a copy of her remarks, as well as possibly her vestry. Anyone who has the contact information for any of these folks, please drop it into a comment.

[44] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 07:14 AM • top

is been awhile.since ive walked into a church,for these very reasons.but doesnt she have a Bishop to advise her? doesnt it disturb you folks,shes doing counseling with her parisoners? besides us, does no one think her a tad offbalence,does no one think her rants are not going to affect allthe people who go to her church?when i talked about people being influenced by what she says, I found it scary.Imean this woman could be sick.

[45] Posted by carolf270 on 07-09-2007 at 07:19 AM • top

Last night I had many things I wanted to say to Ms. Kaeton, but in the clear light of day, I think it is best to say nothing and pray hard for her and her family. And I would entreat all of you to do the same. Matt and I are spending our usual Monday morning catching up on news, talking about how things went on Sunday and letting our kiddos get some much needed rest (Sunday’s, after all, are a long slog for them as well).

[46] Posted by Anne Kennedy on 07-09-2007 at 07:20 AM • top

I think as many Episcopalians as possible need to see these comments - especially Episcopalians with multiple children, so they know what their leadership really thinks about them.

There is really something wrong with a person who can write the comments Elizabeth Kaeton made.  It is sad and confusing.

[47] Posted by DietofWorms on 07-09-2007 at 07:22 AM • top

Thank you Anne+

You, Matt+ and your family are in the prayers of hundreds of readers today, I’m sure.  May the Lord give you much wisdom in knowing how to respond.  May He turn around what was meant for evil into something through which He brings blessing.

May He encourage and strengthen your hearts and grant you His peace.

[48] Posted by Karen B. on 07-09-2007 at 07:26 AM • top

This sounds to me like a “turn the other cheek” situation if I have correctly deduced that it appeared on a blog.  People put inane things on blogs all the time and those people include many who should and otherwise (in person) would know better.
The sad thing is that a stupid comment like this one is used to discredit all female priests, all feminists etc etc.  Or to “prove” something about all women.  Like men don’t post outrageous and idiotic comments all the time.

[49] Posted by Pilgrim on 07-09-2007 at 07:26 AM • top

this is utterly and completely across the line.  Frankly, someone expressing a transparent wish to murder children is clearly unfit for ministry - whatever their theological or sexual orientation.

I’m personally OK with Gene Robinson as a bishop - but think this this posting is much more serious than VGR, the Wiccan priest, and the Muslim priest combined. 

So, I’ve just called the diocese direct - from New Zealand - so everyone else (especially those in the US) should be able to do at least as much. This is probably not just a matter for emails: phone calls or physical letters (ideally from the requisite number members of ECUSA for presement) will have a much greater effect.

contact details for her church are here: http://www.stpaulschatham.org/ContactUs.html

for the diocese:  http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/contact.html

for integrity: http://www.integrityusa.org/
(who may wish to reconsider their choice of spokesperson).

This is not a matter for which an apology is sufficient. Simply for her own mental health - and especially for the safety of her parishioners - Rev Keaton has demonstrated herself unfit to continue to serve as a leader in any capacity within the church.

[50] Posted by James Noble on 07-09-2007 at 07:27 AM • top

BigJim and Greg,
  I agree.  It is time for Mother Liz to be asked for her collar to meditate on her “calling” for a year…  But hey, No one inhibited Mother Susan R and her crowd for the blatant Racist (monkey) cartoon when The Empty Church is so fired up about Racism training…  I for one won’t be holding my breath.  Matt and Anne, you are the true role models.  God Bless you!

[51] Posted by Soy City Priest on 07-09-2007 at 07:34 AM • top

Kaeton+ demonstrates that the only thing worse to a feminist than a man, is a woman who won’t be “liberated” enough.  Sort of like a black politician who isn’t “black enough” for black activists.  In this case, dear Anne+ is much TOO Feminine for the “feminists!”  You’d almost think Kaeton+ had no children of her own!  Guess that happened before she was liberated from all that oppressive reproduction stuff.  Kaeton+, with her own religion, can’t abide references to God’s will or any activity of Satan, which she must chalk up to superstition. 

This one moves to the head of the line in the list of Just How Bad Things Have Gotten in the Episcopal Church.

[52] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 07-09-2007 at 07:35 AM • top

Email and snail mail addreses can be found here for the Standing Committee for the Diocese of Newark.

[53] Posted by JackieB on 07-09-2007 at 07:36 AM • top

I also think a copy of the original/unedited text of her commentary should be sent to her Senior Warden (Vestry) AND to the local newspaper for her area.  This does not need to be beneath the radar.

[54] Posted by Liz Forman on 07-09-2007 at 07:39 AM • top

Yes, hit back hard and messy.  Get it all over the newspapers and score still one more point for the nutty Anglican Communion.

[55] Posted by Pilgrim on 07-09-2007 at 07:41 AM • top

Am I alone in thinking that Kaeton’s stalking Anne’s blog is itself a bit weird?

I stated my initial reaction on the first thread and frankly can’t risk elevating my blood pressure by restating them here.

I intend to send aletter this afternoon to this guy:
The Rt. Rev. Mark Beckwith
31 Mulberry Street
Newark NJ 07102

[56] Posted by James Manley on 07-09-2007 at 07:45 AM • top

Keaton+ is really saying nothing which is not in line with the thoughts of +KJS on children, and motherhood.  She just let that thinking come out in full measure, though she is trying to obscure it retroactively.  Perhaps if she reflects on what she wrote, she may be sufficiently appalled to do some serious reevaluation.

[57] Posted by APB on 07-09-2007 at 07:48 AM • top

Where is all that stuff about loving our enemy?  Why aren’t we content to pile a few coals on her head instead of going after her job?  Where is all that Biblical inerrancy, or is there a more vengeful verse that suits the situation better?  Silly me.

[58] Posted by Pilgrim on 07-09-2007 at 07:51 AM • top

Around Easter this year I posted to E Kaeton’s website, referring to something she had written against the Lambeth Conference resolution on sexuality:
You ask, referring to 1998 Lambeth resolution 1.10, “Who will take responsibility for the emotional, psychological and spiritual damage done to the church and her people for perpetuating the evils of this deficient standard of teaching?”

Only a few days earlier (April 2) you said, “I stopped counting after I lost my 50th friend to the [AIDS] epidemic.”

I am left with the haunting thought that they might all still be alive if they had followed the behavioural standard that you regard as defective. Who will take responsibility for that damage?
I hope you will accept this post as arising from Christian love rather than cultural imperialism. For some people it may be the difference between life and death.
Kind regards
Dermot

She replied…
Dermont,
I’ve published your comment only because it says so much more about you than any scurrilous thing you could say about my friends who have died.
Christian love?
I’ll bet you can quote scripture, chapter and verse, but I fear you don’t know anything about the unconditional love of Jesus.

I replied:
Elizabeth
I’m sorry I hurt you. I know the memory of so many friends will be dear to you.
What I was trying clumsily to point out was that if people worldwide followed Lambeth teaching, AIDS would die out.
Is that not a prize worth striving towards - although we’ll never meet it?
Jesus’ love for us is unconditional, as you rightly say. But if we claim to love him, he does impose conditions, “If anyone loves me, he/ she will obey my teaching” (Jn 14:23). And Jesus was painfully strict on matters of sexual morality.
I agree with your judgement about “the irrationality of prejudice”. I’m trying to be rational. Once again, I’m sorry about the pain my words caused you.
Kind regards
Dermot
She replied:
Oh, Dermot, I fear you also don’t know much about the various ways AIDS is transmitted - much less life in Africa or Asia where the AIDS pandemic is raging out of control.
AIDS may have had its debut IN THIS COUNTRY in the gay community, but the AIDS pandemic is, and probably always has been, a much larger problem among heterosexuals.
But, that’s not the point. The point of the spread of AIDS is not about a judgment on groups of people because of their sexual orientation, or geographical location, or race or even class or economic standard.  Rather, it’s about uninformed, unprotected sexual behavior.  AIDS will not die out if the Lambeth Standard is observed.
The so-called Lambeth standard is as out of touch with the reality of people’s lives as it was about Birth Control and the status of Women in the church and the role of Women in the world, and Divorce, and any number of other issues of social concern.  We don’t need a Lambeth standard.  We need a Jesus standard - which the Lambeth standard most definitely is not.
In fact, I think it makes Jesus weep.
*****************************
My reply, as follows, was not accepted by EK and was not posted on her website.  It would be good if it could be aired via Stand Firm.
Elizabeth
You say, “We need a Jesus standard - which the Lambeth standard most definitely is not.”
The Jesus standard is:
“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? ... Therefore what God has joined together let not man separate.”  (Matt 19:4-6) – Jesus says that marriage is male-female, for life.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’  But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  (Matt 5:27,28) – Jesus says the spirit of the law on sexual morality is tighter, not looser than the letter.
“... out of men’s hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality ....” (Mark 7:21).
The word rendered ‘sexual immorality’ is porneiai, a plural word which would include same-sex intercourse.
Lambeth “upholds faithfulness in marriage
between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that
abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage”
I think that is a pretty good approximation of the Jesus standard – it would not make the authentic Jesus weep.
I believe that adherence to this standard WOULD conquer AIDS (certainly if we add to it such things as not using drug needles, and infected persons refraining from sexual relations – both of which are highly compatible with both Lambeth and Jesus).
Also, the incidence of AIDS among homosexual men is much higher than for heterosexuals; this is not inconsistent with a larger absolute number of heterosexual cases, since the latter are a much larger group.
Thankfully we would both agree that such beliefs as (in Africa) that a cure for a man with AIDS is to have sex with a virgin girl, are utterly abhorrent.
Kind regards
Dermot

[59] Posted by Thomas Scarlett on 07-09-2007 at 08:06 AM • top

Pilgrim,

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but my concern is not so much the fact that Kaeton wrote these things about a fellow priest, although I think that angle certainly needs to be dealt with. I’m much more concerned that here we have a rector of a parish, and the president of Newark’s standing committee, who is publishing graphic infanticide musings on her public blog. At the very least, it raises the question of whether she’s mentally fit to continue in either capacity.

[60] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 08:13 AM • top

One only need read Kaeton’s frequent posts to the HoB/D Servelist for a period of time to see just how hateful this woman is. Let’s face it, there are none so intolerant than those who claim to be totally inclusive.

As exemplified by here comments, Kaeton is just another example of just how deep their hatred runs. Of course, they think of it as “rightful justification based on having themselves been oppressed.” Hmm!

[61] Posted by Albeit on 07-09-2007 at 08:14 AM • top

I suspect Elizabeth Kaeton would be one of the first people to stomp her feet and complain that conservatives aren’t willing to participate in the “listening process,” while she spews such hate.  Incredible.
And thanks for shutting down the comment thread on this last night.  You saved me from myself.

[62] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 07-09-2007 at 08:23 AM • top

Thomas Scarlett,

The Rev. Kaeton is a divorcee. Just FYI.

[63] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 07-09-2007 at 08:23 AM • top

“Pilgrim,

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but my concern is not so much the fact that Kaeton wrote these things about a fellow priest, although I think that angle certainly needs to be dealt with. I’m much more concerned that here we have a rector of a parish, and the president of Newark’s standing committee, who is publishing graphic infanticide musings on her public blog. At the very least, it raises the question of whether she’s mentally fit to continue in either capacity.”

Well, it sounds like standard feminist cant to me.  Perhaps some of you are in that parish or otherwise have some reason to approach from outside the situation whereby it would be appropriate to rat her off to superiors, but I thought as Christians if we were offended we were supposed to first confront the person who offended us.  Here again my Bible inerrancy doubts (not about the Bible but the people who whack me with it) come into play.
It is a bit late to get all huffy about the quality of some of these people who have been ordained.  My question is what happened to the superiorly gifted males who used to be in charge that allowed people like this to be ordained in the first place.  Where was the discernment and wisdom and balanced judgement back then?  Or did they just sit back passively and wait (hope) for them to fail, as happened in many professions.

[64] Posted by Pilgrim on 07-09-2007 at 08:23 AM • top

Yes, her bishop should be informed, and she should be called to remove the entire item and post an apology in its place.  I do not think that any kind of litigation would be constructive.  It’s not clear that these statements are even actionable.  Not everything offensive should go to court.

How severely radical feminism has twisted this woman’s mind!  It is entirely normal for a six-year-old girl in a happy home to want to be a Mommy like the one she loves.  At six she’s not able to decide to be a clinical psychologist; she’s able to want to emulate the people who love her.  The nausea Ms. Keaton feels about child-bearing comes from the illness in her soul, which denies the Creator and His purposes.  We don’t all have to be parents in adult life to be able to see that parenting is one of God’s blessed professions.

[65] Posted by Katherine on 07-09-2007 at 08:30 AM • top

This is horrifying.  I have sent a note to my bishop (Bishop Wright of Delaware) asking that she not be allowed to preach/teach in the diocese until a full, sincere, public apology has been made, and that he speak with Bishop Beckwith about the matter.

[66] Posted by pksundevil on 07-09-2007 at 08:34 AM • top

Pilgrim,

For the record, I hailed The Rev. Kaeton on instant messenger last night with the intention of discussing an apology. She didn’t respond, and later signed off. I am sending her an email now.

[67] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 08:35 AM • top

Imagine if “Pro-Choice” Kaeton had acted on her convictions many years back, where her granddaughter’s mother was concerned. There would of have been no “warm fuzzy feeling” to reflect on today, I suspect.

Once again, welcome to Kaeton’s convoluted thinking. She despises “motherhood,” but fawns over being a grandmother.

[68] Posted by Albeit on 07-09-2007 at 08:44 AM • top

What is in the this woman’s heart that would facilitate her writing such things?  (and what is in her head that would put them on the internet?)  Certainly no presence of Christ to be found from my standpoint.

This woman has no business being in a position of leadership in any church (clergy or lay).  And for those of you who read the HoB/D list serve, you’ve likely thought the same thing long before this latest episode….

[69] Posted by Chris on 07-09-2007 at 08:46 AM • top

At this point, I’m just waiting for Fr. Jake to come in and call us all “bottom feeders”.

In all seriousness - Pilgrim, if this woman needed food, I would feed her.  If she needed shelter, I’d provide room in my own humble home.  I’m not sure I’d leave her alone with my children…  My point is I’ll gladly show Christian charity to Ms. Keaton, but it doesn’t mean that any of us evil “StandFirmers” want her to provide pastoral care that might cause no end of damage to someone.  Galatians deals with issues such as this (I’m just a simple reader of the Bible and not a seminarian)

[70] Posted by wdgreen340 on 07-09-2007 at 08:49 AM • top

The funny thing about feminism is the the women who follow it are intent on giving up their own femininity. 

While Miss Keaton’s words are mean and unwarranted on any level, they are directed toward an actual woman, whose strength I am sure is much greater than her own.  Bullies are always afraid of those more powerful than they.  But Mrs. Matt Kennedy has Jesus himself as her strength, so this tarted up, school yard name calling really falls on his ears.

“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Grace and peace to you all.

[71] Posted by Saint Dumb Ox on 07-09-2007 at 08:55 AM • top

I think one of the most common charges we hear is that we are self-righteous and judgmental. What is this if not self-righteous and judgmental? But the thing that disturbs me most is the hatred, the seething anger - a person consumed by such feelings should not be in priest’s vestments and ministering to others. How much hate does she spread? How much injury does she do, even unaware, with all that bottled up inside her? I would hate to need pastoral help and have only this woman to turn to.

[72] Posted by oscewicee on 07-09-2007 at 08:55 AM • top

I think the original comment and this entire thread is hyperbolic.  I think blogs in general are hyperbolic, unhealthy and contribute to the dichotomizing (hee hee my word) of most present-day discourse.  Thus my pathetic little pleas for temperance and common sense.  Chill.  Get a grip.

[73] Posted by Pilgrim on 07-09-2007 at 08:57 AM • top

The following is the content of an email that I just sent to Mark Beckwith, the new bishop of Newark:

Dear Rev Beckwith,

When you were the rector at All Saints in Worcester, you married me and the daughter of two of your parishioners. We now have 4 beautiful girls.  My wife is a wonderful mother, and her mother is wonderful as well.  I know that when you are bearing the burden of raising several children, life can be a bit chaotic.  However, I give thanks to God that my wife has not only borne up under the stress, but she has flowered as a woman, and I celebrate that, and respect her deeply for the job she has done (and continues to do) for our daughters.

It came to my attention that Elizabeth Kaeton, one of the priests in your diocese has a very disturbing view of marriage, mothers, and children.

I would be very interested in your reaction to the following quote that Elizabeth made on her public weblog.  Our opinions may differ, but when I read it, I have a difficult time seeing how this might reflect glory to God.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would be offensive to God, and badly represents you and your diocese, unless, of course, you agree.

Frankly, these sound like the words of a woman who has some mental issues, or at the very least, has a bad chip on her shoulder towards many in her flock over whom she may be in spiritual guidance.

I also believe she is on the standing committee for your diocese.  It’s difficult to believe that a woman that holds such violent and offensive views toward mothers and children would be in such a position of influence.

Here is what Elizabeth wrote on her public weblog:
——————————————————————-
There is one woman, an Episcopal priest married to an Episcopal priest, whose writing sometimes flat out scares the BeJesus out of me. She is pregnant with their fourth child, the youngest of whom is not yet one year old. They are using “Natural Family Planning” - letting “God decide” on how many children they will be blessed with and resigning themselves to gladly take whatever God gives them, giving God the praise and glory.

She gets lots of support from women who have made similar choices, all giddy with what they describe as Christian love and the Holy Ghost. Everyone seems positively ecstatic about this new pregnancy while this poor woman writes about how she doesn’t have the energy to clean her house or herself or her children whom, she muses with mild curiosity, might get their feet cut on the cereal bowl one of them smashed this morning which she simply hasn’t had the inclination to clean up.

The women commenting on this have nothing but giddy high praise for her. I can only read so much before I have to reach for some dry crackers. Apparently, you can experience “morning sickness” by proxy.

Umm . . .Can you say, “Irresponsible?”

Okay, then. How about “Madness”?

Don’t believe me? Think I’m overstating my case? Well, after reading a few of her entries, I have seriously considered calling the local authorities.

I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home.
——————End of quote—————————

In all Christian love, I think this woman needs to be in therapy, not leading a church.

[74] Posted by Charlie Peppler on 07-09-2007 at 09:01 AM • top

I’m so sorry that Anne and Matt had to read this type of trash and, really, implicit threat to their family, from a so-called priest.  Still, Anne is so right and so gracious in her response.  We should pray for Kaeton (who, I’ve suggested before, and is clearly confirmed here, has serious issues with hate and anger) and trust in Our Lord Jesus Christ to bring her His peace.  This is a far more profitable path than writing letters to a diocesan power structure that, frankly, is unlikely to give a damn what one of its icons says on her blog.

[75] Posted by Phil on 07-09-2007 at 09:02 AM • top

Pilgrim,

Then by all means, please accept my invitation to spend your time on healthier pursuits.

[76] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 09:02 AM • top

“Pilgrim,

Then by all means, please accept my invitation to spend your time on healthier pursuits”

Consider it done.  God’s peace to you.

[77] Posted by Pilgrim on 07-09-2007 at 09:05 AM • top

Pilgrim—

[78] Posted by In Newark on 07-09-2007 at 09:05 AM • top

Pilgrim— THERE ARE SOULS IN THIS WOMAN’S CHARGE. 
Fantasizing about a fellow priest murdering her children in cold blood is not just “standard feminist cant.”  Nor is this an issue about women’s ordination.  I’m pretty sure the man who ordained her is John Shelby Spong, whom SFers don’t exactly treat with kid gloves.

There is nothing Christian about letting people like this prey on innocent souls.  Come to Newark and see the fruit of attitudes like yours.  We not only have this woman, with her murderous fantasies, running both a parish and our Standing Committee, we have an archdeacon who is so arrogant that she thought it fitting for some of the elderly members of her parish to wash her feet on Maundy Thursday.  One lady wound up in a walker because of her injuries.  In her secular life, the archdeacon is a registered nurse.

I would respectfully suggest that you go back to your Bible and look up some of those passages about false teachers and broods of vipers.  Then come to this diocese of doomed souls and broken hearts, and consider whether gentleness is still called for.

[79] Posted by In Newark on 07-09-2007 at 09:21 AM • top

Back on topic, please:

If anyone else has written or called Bishop Beckwith, standing committee members, or anyone else in the diocesan leadership, please consider sharing your remarks here.

[80] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 09:24 AM • top

This is for pilgim I do not know you but I will pray for you also. for you stated that this is one more point for the communion. I will pray that The Lord our savior will show you that is is not for any set religion but that is is what the Father taught us in the Old Testament and what The Son Christ stated in the New Testament. We are all God’s children but some will be disowned by Him and those are the ones that I feel very sorry for. Christ stated that He loves us all and His love is for all, but he also stated that we have to follow His teachings and do as He commanded us to do and not what we think is best for us all and not what society thinks. We should have learned that from the Pharrasies for they did as they thought was right and crusified an innocent man. Thanks to God they did for now we have a way to get to heaven. We need to follow His teaching to get there wether we are catholic, baptist, or any other Christian religion. We all need to follow the Bible and not what we think is the best parts of it for us but ALL of it. May God please somehow in a new way show us the bad way we are going before it is too late.

[81] Posted by chulolee on 07-09-2007 at 09:37 AM • top

Please, let’s not lump all feminists with Elizabeth Kaeton.  She seems to me to be as dangerous as those male 1950 stereotypes who wanted women ‘barefoot and pregnant.’  If the goal of feminism is to liberate women and give women choices, then women should have the choice to stay at home and raise their children without being derided by so-called feminists.

I like Timothy’s assertion:

Perhaps attention should shift from exposing the never ending heresy and apostacy of individuals in TEC to a more positive approach toward the future of a new Anglicanism.

Certainly, we need to balance our reports regarding TEC’s heresies with ‘the future of a new Anglicanism.’  BabyBlue pointed out yesterday that the best thing we can be doing with our time is evangelizing and getting a revival going in TEC
Lift high Jesus, so that He may draw all people to Himself.

[82] Posted by selah on 07-09-2007 at 09:39 AM • top

This deserves the fresh sanitizing breeze of a public libel lawsuit, so to expose how tolerant and inclusive this bunch really is.

[83] Posted by VaAnglican on 07-09-2007 at 09:42 AM • top

Geez, I try to get a good nights sleep and wake up to this. Sheeeesh.
Words fail me.

the snarkster

[84] Posted by the snarkster on 07-09-2007 at 09:43 AM • top

“Words fail me.”

Not for long they don’t raspberry

[85] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 07-09-2007 at 09:45 AM • top

When a priest of the church “swear[s] to God” that another priest of the church will “one of these days” commit a heinous crime, it is difficult to simply dismiss it as hyperbolic histrionics of the blogosphere.  The allusions to Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, and the Heaven’s Gate cult are irresponsible and reprehensible.  The injury is then compounded by the blasphemy that “God told her” to do it.  Kaeton has crossed the line and we cannot give her pass on this.  In hindsight, she had the lucidity to self-censor her original post, but in Kaeton’s last comment at 11:56 last night, there is no evidence of remorse. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=29373297&postID=8771805255946173842  There is a nonsensical reference to Bottom Feeders being trolls, and it being a slow news week.

We should indeed pray, and afterwards direct our concerns to the diocesan authorities in Newark.

[86] Posted by Maria Lytle on 07-09-2007 at 09:55 AM • top

There are some interesting comments up at Kaeton’s blog, including her own, which is quite scornful.  There is also a kindly critical comment from our friend Tom Head, which concludes:

You will probably delete this, and that’s certainly your right. To be honest, I’m not sure I care. I was heartbroken by this sort of thing a long time ago. I came into the Episcopal Church because of the election of Bishop Robinson in New Hampshire, shortly before GC2003. I left when it became clear that lesbian and gay inclusion issues were being used as a bargaining chip to enforce boundary restrictions, a suspicion that was confirmed in no uncertain terms at GC2006 by way of resolution B033. And the more I see of this sort of thing, the happier I am that I left.

[87] Posted by In Newark on 07-09-2007 at 09:57 AM • top

I’m really disturbed by the strange attack on Anne Kennedy. It seems mean, and even if I disagree with her, she doesn’t deserve it.

That being said, I think some of Jesus words might help in this situation. I’m thinking of Matthew 18.

I don’t think Jesus imagined the internet with this scripture, but our world is smaller because of it. Seems to me the first step- rather than public stoneing through e-mail’s to bishops, standing commitees and vestries is for Elizebeth and Anne to talk to one another. It seems to me that this sin here is that Elizebeth made some rather strange, nasty comments about a fellow Christian in her community (on the internet). I suppose if people are reading each other’s blogs that creats some kind of community, though limited.)

THe first step in scripture, as Jesus suggests, is to go to the offending member of the community and tell them the wrong that has happend and ask them to mend thier ways. Have Anne and Elizabeth talked to each other? I hope they do.

It would be upto Anne to determine if Elizabeth is contrite enough and has truly sought her forgiveness. That might include a public apology and a number of other things.

If Elizebeth doesn’t see her wrong, or seek Anne’s forgiveness, then it would make sense for a few others to go with Anne and help Elizebeth understand here error. Perhaps Anne could ask Elizebeth’s Bishop for a meeting, or ask a few fellow preist to sit down and talk.

If that doesn’t work then it should go before the whole assembly- I suppose that would be what is happening here. It seems we are close to a public stoning through e-mail.

Have Anne and Elizebeth had the opportunity to go through these reconciling steps? Are we acting in a way that Jesus would have us act? I’m not excusing Elizebeth’s behaviour. But think we are missing something important.

The world is watching. What gospel are we preaching?

[88] Posted by plainsheretic on 07-09-2007 at 09:58 AM • top

Wait until she find out that my neighbors (Catliks) have SIX children!  Definitely need to alert the police about the danger of imminent homicide.  Oh…the mom of the family is a graduate of Princeton University and works part time so maybe she’ll only kill half her kids.

If only these anti-reproduction women would use birth control BEFORE they had kids.  Anybody remember Tom Lehrer’s line “I feel if a person has trouble communicating the least they can do is to shut up about it.”  Well…I feel that if a person doesn’t feel that parenthood is one of the highest callings a person can have and is convinced that kids make you suicidal (or diminish your life) the least they can do is NOT HAVE ANY KIDS! 

I would love it if one of my kids would tell me their goal was to be a parent.  I tell my kids I only have two major goals for them: 1) I want them to be good people; 2) I want them to be happy.  (In that order.)  Everything else they do is only a means to those two ends.

[89] Posted by Catholic Mom on 07-09-2007 at 10:00 AM • top

Kaeton is need of immediate psychiatric help.  If she is presently in counseling, she needs to find a more competent counselor.  She just drips with venom and she should be removed from the Standing Committee, her parish position and given time to find some semblance of acceptable mental stability.  Of course, being that she lives in the Diocese of Newark, none of this will happen.  She will continue to preach inclusive love and say the most offensive things about people she disagrees with.  This is what passes for integrity in the DoN and other liberal enclaves in pecusa.

[90] Posted by TonyinCNY on 07-09-2007 at 10:03 AM • top

Maria,
I would also add that in an earlier post, Rev. Kaeton indicates that she is working up a blog post about feminism.  This was up several hours before her she posted her personal attack on the Kennedys.  This shows that she clearly she had time to ruminate about matters before she posted.

Greg, I have written the members of the Newark Standing Committee, but did so under my real non-blogging name so it would be clear it was coming from a real person.

[91] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 07-09-2007 at 10:05 AM • top

There are so many lines this post crosses, I’ve had the unfortunate experience of growing up with feminist, lets say at ten you don’t know what a male chauvinist is much less why you are labeled one. So I’ll not dive into an exogenous of exactly how wrong it is for my own sanity sake.

However the less passionate one for me ...

Her comments also seem to cross the line of her TOS about Defamation/Libel maybe Hate Content as well.

[92] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 07-09-2007 at 10:12 AM • top

I would like to point out a few things that deserve attention.

Apparently, Susan Smith’s decision to drown her children in her car was not at all due to post-partum depression but due to the fact that her then boyfriend did not want to deal with children and for various reasons wished to discontinue their relationship.  She figured, according to what I read many years ago, that ridding herself of these impediments might help her cause.

It appears to have been a clear “quality of life” decision on Ms. Smith’s part, the kind that one may legally make in this country prior to birth—that is, Ms. Smith’s “quality of life”, not that of her children.

The Andrea Yates murders also had little to do with post-partum depression, as she had apparently been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was not treated for that, for various unfortunate reasons.

That is my recollection of the end-result of all the speculation regarding these two Extremely Depressing cases of infanticide. 

On the other hand, a notable public example of post-partum was Brook Shield’s going public with her condition, and Tom Cruise’s unfortunate and public comments in response.

An acquaintance of mine was afflicted with this, after having had two children with no problems.  It’s a devastating illness, caused by a sharp plummeting of hormones from their formerly lofty heights, and I really think it is very difficult to bear up under that loss, for those who have soared and then plummeted in such immense spikes.  While all women experience that hormonal loss after childbirth, it’s not always so extreme.  Post-partum usually leads towards a near-catatonic state of clinical depression, if not treated and certainly should be watched in all new mothers—it can strike after every child for some mothers, or merely after one child in others.  Most clinically depressed people cannot muster up the energy to murder other people, although sometimes they summon enough to murder themselves, tragically.

I just thought I would point out some of these differences, since I don’t think it’s a good idea to mix up the causes of these various public cases of infanticide.  1) Self-interest is different from 2) paranoid schizophrenia, which is different from 3) post-partum depression.

Also . . . Ms. Kaeton [still] does not know what an Internet troll is.  Neither her original post nor SF’s posts in response to it qualifies as trolldom.  A troll is a commenter who deliberately engages in this action: “(v.) (1) To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait other users into responding.”  [Source: Webopedia]

Trolls are commenters who glide into other blogs, drop inflammatory comments [as in—“you’re just like Hitler gassing Jews”], then run away without engaging in the ensuing debate.

A person who drops in an “alternate viewpoint” comment at a blog that ends up “stirring people to outrage” is not a troll if he or she remains to engage in the ensuing debate with rational discourse and if his or her comment was not solely intended to evoke anger.  That is why, when most of the revisionists who skate in here to comment stay and engage, it is not an accurate description to describe them as “trolls”.  They may be irrational, or highly emotional, or dead wrong, or bitterly angry—but they are usually not trolls.

That being said, I suspect that Ms. Kaeton is struggling—casting about in her mind—to come up with some sort of appellation that is actually insulting to those whom she so desperately wishes to insult.  We have joyfully accepted one of her main attempts—“bottom feeders”—and so she needs to try again. 

So far, though, she merely reveals her lack of grasp of cyber-terms.

I honestly think it will be quite difficult for her to come up with such a term that she could use to good effect as a real, bona-fide insult.

[93] Posted by Sarah on 07-09-2007 at 10:22 AM • top

Even without the vile slurs against the Reverends Kennedy, this woman needs to be, at a minimum, counseled by her Bishop. Her unqualified statement that she

rejoice(s) in the changes brought in with th(e) tide (of “The Feminist Movement”)

directly implies that she rejoices in the terminations of the lives of roughly 44 million unborn infants in the United States alone. This is a morally repugnant stance from any person, including an unbeliever. To state the case bluntly, based solely on the statement quoted above, Kaeton is morally unqualified to be a priest in any Christian church.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[94] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 07-09-2007 at 10:26 AM • top

Thank you, Plainsparson.

[95] Posted by selah on 07-09-2007 at 10:31 AM • top

[comment slightly edited]  When tactics like this are used, they know the end is near. 

I am sorry for the smear against the Kennedys.  I pray that Bishop Beckwith reprimands this loose cannon woman.

[96] Posted by Tom Dupree, Jr. on 07-09-2007 at 10:32 AM • top

To quote Greg Griffith quoting Dorothy Parker: What fresh hell is this??

Kaeton really should be called to account for this. That even now she seems oblivious to the horrific offense she has given to Matt and Anne and their beautiful family, says just how out of touch with reality she is. As a father of four this struck home, not the least Kaeton’s direct and serious threat to call CPS, but also the spiritual and psychological assault on Anne—no mother should have such horrors brought to mind, much less be accused of being on the brink of acting them out. This is not “beyond the pale.” This drove over the sign saying “Welcome to Pale” and floored it.

Anne, your family is beautiful, and your posts describe the same mundane and everyday miraculous that mothers have been struggling with and overcoming and rejoicing in since time immemorial. Kaeton understands nothing about that. I know you won’t let her irrational raving affect you, but you and Matt are in my prayers anyway.

Unbelievable.

[97] Posted by Dave on 07-09-2007 at 10:34 AM • top

IMHO, Elizabeth Kaeton is crazy.  But who am I to say if anybody else is crazy?  After all, I’m no Paul Marshall! wink

[98] Posted by Piedmont on 07-09-2007 at 10:37 AM • top

Well, if you all think emailing the members of the Newark Standing Committee is useless, you should know that I have already recieved an email back from one of its members, asking me to forward a copy of the offensive language as it originally appeared.  I have done so.

I strongly encourage others to email the members of the standing committee.

[99] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 07-09-2007 at 10:45 AM • top

Digging the whole deeper: a commenter calling herself “Muthah+” says of Anne, “I just hurt for her because her ideas have changed in just the matter of 4 years.”

As the father of a 2-year-old, I think the idea that one should “hurt” for someone who takes joy from being a parent is spiritually sick.  There’s something wrong with the narcissism that says children are an obstacle to your life.

Hey, NBS, that’s great!  I stand corrected.

[100] Posted by Phil on 07-09-2007 at 10:53 AM • top

I just responded to ‘Muthah’ over on Ms. Kaeton’s blog. As usual, one doesn’t mean to respond, but one gets drawn in and unhinged and…I’d better go do something else for a while instead of refreshing obsessively for more comments. Thank you all so much for your prayers and kind thoughts today. This is turning out to be a very weird experience.

[101] Posted by Anne Kennedy on 07-09-2007 at 10:57 AM • top

You guys are missing the point - Kaeton’s+ granddaughter is better than your kids. This means her daughter is a better mom than you and that means she was a swell mother as well.  Soup to nuts, from conception to helping a child find their vocation, she’s just a better mother than you can ever hope to be - and it’s all because your theology is wrong. She “gets it” and you don’t.

This isn’t a mental condition - it’s a condition of the heart when flowers and little girl dreams can be used to promote a theo-political world view.

Anne+ and Matt+ thanks be to God! for the example you set raising a Christian family and teaching Godly principles. May God be so generous to my wife and I as to give us the same opportunity.

[102] Posted by texex on 07-09-2007 at 11:05 AM • top

This is indeed a disgusting thing for a supposed priest to be saying about another priest. Any one who could stoop to this level of thought should be removed from her post as a parish priest and that of President of the Standing Committe.

However, being the DofN, I doubt that the Bishop will doing anything at all. And I am equally sure that 815 won’t do anything either. They can only sue those they disagree with.

To the Kennedy’s I say sincerely that my prayers are with you. ANd further, to gain this much hatred from her, you both must be doing something right. Hang in there and God bless both of you and your children as well. I personally can’t think of any greater blessing than being a parent—except perhaps being a grandparent, which I just became and now have the privilege of caring for my little granddaughter while her parents work. It has brought so many blessings to our family. Praise God for his manifold blessings.

[103] Posted by FrRick on 07-09-2007 at 11:08 AM • top

Anne dear,
perhaps you should allow your friends, and supporters to fight this particular battle. 

Every woman that I know (and I know a bunch) would love to don our battle gear (that is mops, brooms, baby bottles, etc) and take care of this one. 

Mz kaeton has made an absolute fool of herself, and her feminist agenda.  Someone wise once said, “if a person is making a fool of themselves, stand back and let them”.

You take care of yourself, and your children, and of course husband (luv ya Matt) this is one time when the veterans may be better able, to handle this.

Be sure that you have many, many more friends and supporters than you will ever know personally.  We will continue to hold you up in prayer, and pray protection for you and yours.

Grannie Kay and I went through a terrible time a couple of years back, with attacks on our integrity, sex-life, and God knows what else.  But, we made it through, altho it was very hurtful at the time.

This too shall pass, sort of like bacteria. 

Blessings, and Peace
Grannie Gloria

[104] Posted by Grandmother on 07-09-2007 at 11:09 AM • top

I want to “third” what Fr J. and St Dumb Ox said—Anne and Matt should acknowledge these words as insults that show how right (rather than wrong) they are, that they are “earning jewels in their crowns” as my wife would say. Kaeton’s comments are just another indicator of the fear of children in this country. A recent survey just released said something to the same effect, essentially revealing that having children is low on the list as a reason for marriage.
Signed “Homeschooler” (I love those quote marks she used!) Dave

[105] Posted by DavidSh on 07-09-2007 at 11:14 AM • top

Thank you Grannie Gloria,
I am doing my best to keep out.

[106] Posted by Anne Kennedy on 07-09-2007 at 11:14 AM • top

Re:  “I swear to G**...”

There’s even more weirdness at work.  The woman took the Lord’s name in vain. 

I suppose that’s life in our world nowadays.  Decades or so ago, my grandfather would have fired one of his carpenters for misusing the Lord’s name, while the word for excrement would have merited one stern warning (...one).  But today, it happens so much on TV, and around the water-cooler, that in my complacency I just shrug it off as the musings of an unbeliever. 

I am further confounded by the fact that this person wears a clerical collar, and is incapable of following the simplest of commandments.  By comparison, I’m less confounded by her incompetence as a shepherd.

[107] Posted by J Eppinga on 07-09-2007 at 11:16 AM • top

My snail mail letter going out this afternoon:
______________
Right Reverend Sir:

I was appalled to read the following personal attack on an Episcopal priest, The Rev. Anne Kennedy of the Diocese of Central New York, made by one of your leading clergy, The Rev. Elizabeth Keaton, on her blog (http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html#8771805255946173842):
<snip, since we’ve all read it>

I write to ask if you approve of either Mtr. Keaton’s taking the Lord’s name in vain so flippantly, or of this repulsive personal attack on a sister member of the clergy.  I also suggest that this priest’s attitude toward children and motherhood is in need of godly pastoral counsel.

Sincerely,

[108] Posted by James Manley on 07-09-2007 at 11:17 AM • top

Matt 5:11-12

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Luke 21:12-13

they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

John 15:20-22

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

John 16:1-4

These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them.

Additional comment deleted.


pax Christi,
LP

[109] Posted by LP on 07-09-2007 at 11:17 AM • top

At least she admits that Jesus has been scared out of her.

[110] Posted by James Manley on 07-09-2007 at 11:20 AM • top

James Manley,

Please note that the link to Kaeton’s blog you’ve included in your letter does not contain the infanticide remarks. My recommendation would be to quote the paragraph in my post above. Thanks!

[111] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 11:26 AM • top

Anne and Phil, Muhtat+ also appears in the comments at Andrew+‘s Dust Up—basically admitting that she would be inhibited if she were open and honest about her faith.

Birds of a feather, I suppose…

[112] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 07-09-2007 at 11:27 AM • top

This story should be sent to the broadcast media in New Jersey.  The only way that the average Episcopalian will leard of this outrageous behavior will be from the news media.  I am certain that they will be shocked by the actions of one of their leaders.

The Rev. Ms. Keaton can only get away with this type of behavior when stays “under the radar.”

Perhaps we out to give the media access to the HOB/Deputies Listserve.  I am sure they would have a field day with the comments posted by the national leadership of our dying church.

[113] Posted by TraditionalOne on 07-09-2007 at 11:29 AM • top

Anne’s comment at Elizabeth’s blog is gracious and Christian.  I fear, however, that this would not be a constructive conversation.  Unless Ms. Keaton responds personally to Mrs. Kennedy in a way that is open and rational, this is probably not worth the time of either adult Kennedy.

I took the time to read Ms. Keaton’s entire post as it stands today.  Here’s another line that stands out:  “Some of my children’s earliest memories are of helping to organize “Take Back the Night” demonstrations and marches after a woman had been raped in our community. This was an act of boldness so unthinkable as to have astonished my grandmother and which continues to amaze my mother, both of whom considered rape an eventuality in every woman’s life.”  My grandmother was born in 1890, married in 1914, and bore seven children thereafter.  I never heard anything from here to indicate that rape was an accepted eventuality, nor did my mother (born 1918, married 1945, three children) ever think this way.  Seriously, while some of the twentieth-century changes in women’s status have been good, I do not believe that the lives of Christian women in America were ones of quiet desperation as Keaton seems to think.

[114] Posted by Katherine on 07-09-2007 at 11:33 AM • top

Dear Anne and Matt,

The best response you can give to the likes of Keaton is to continue to live joyfully for the Lord.  Rearing up godly children.  Loving them and one another as Christ loves you.  Teaching them the true meaning of that love and living the gospel in your daily pursuits.  Playing, working, praying and worshiping together.  Strenghtening one another in times of stress.  Rejoicing together in wonder at God’s creation and goodness.  Knowing above all else that the promises made by our Lord and Savior are now part of your flesh.  Written on your hearts as sure as the words of scripture.  God keep you.  And if you really want to set Keatons head to spinning keep your quiver full.

[115] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 07-09-2007 at 11:34 AM • top

http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/

OK, everybody needs to truck on over to Liz’s site and check out the ridiculous and half-assed apology she posted. What a maroon.

the snarkster

[116] Posted by the snarkster on 07-09-2007 at 11:38 AM • top

Rev. Kaeton has published on this again at Telling Secrets, and her explaination is even more of a deranged assault that the original post was.  Ann, you’ve been reported to the Bishop and there is serious discussion about whether childrens’ services needs to get involved.

David and Greg, this is really all your fault for outing Ann as the target of Rev. Kaeton’s original post.

[117] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 07-09-2007 at 11:39 AM • top

Katherine: you forgot, to a feminist of the ‘60s stripe, marriage is rape.

[118] Posted by Phil on 07-09-2007 at 11:40 AM • top

I was going to leave a comment on her blog, but then I noticed that comment moderation has been turned on, so it wouldn’t see print anyway.  She’s deleted all the comments that used to be there, it seems. 

I’m a stay at home mum.  I used to buy into the feminist “you can have it all” lie.  However, I realized it was a lie the morning I dropped my first son off at daycare and my heart broke.  It took four more years before I was able to quit and stay home, but the benefits have been immeasurable (and I gave up a $42,000 salary to do it, and I wasn’t yet at the top of the pay scale for my profession).  I don’t understand why anybody would pay someone else to raise their children if it wasn’t necessary.  I don’t necessarily think it has to be the woman who stays home either - I just think a parent should be at home, and most of the time, the woman is the person better suited.

[119] Posted by Kate S on 07-09-2007 at 11:40 AM • top

Elizabeth’s “blatant non-apology” on Telling Secrets turns out to be yet another attack on Anne. It is extremely hurtful to say the least, and just know that I am wrapping you in protective prayer, Anne.

[120] Posted by NMcolorist on 07-09-2007 at 11:48 AM • top

Mrs. Falstaff, I agree with you completely.  I came to the same conclusion myself (MBA, some years of experience in financial and systems analysis).  When I took a nearly-full-time job once, I worked hard at seeing that my daughters didn’t suffer, and the person who did suffer was—me.  In addition, in spite of my efforts, one of my daughters did not do well with after-school care from someone other than me.  This doesn’t mean that every woman must make the decisions I did; women and children and situations differ.  It does mean that vicious carping at a woman who loves children and chooses to welcome them in quantity is way out of line.

[121] Posted by Katherine on 07-09-2007 at 11:51 AM • top

“It’s all scurrilous and salacious and vile.”

Yes, that’s what Kaeton wrote - about this entry.

Her “apology” is more disturbing than the original post.  That’s the right word: “disturbing.”  There is something seriously wrong here - with the supposed calls to authorities, the bishop, the “friends who live in the area” who “might check in.”

I’ve changed my mind.  This is a matter for the Standing Committee - an urgent matter.

Please, everyone, say a prayer for Ms. Kaeton.

[122] Posted by Phil on 07-09-2007 at 11:51 AM • top

Read it.  - Elvis has left the building.

[123] Posted by J Eppinga on 07-09-2007 at 11:52 AM • top

Oh, where is a Seraphim and a lighting bolt when you need one?

[124] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 07-09-2007 at 11:56 AM • top

Let me quote from Kaetn’s “apology”:

My first draft of the piece was admittedly edgy. I hadn’t intended it to be so. In the way of being connected to one’s work, I didn’t really see it until after it was up. It was posted for about ¾ of an hour when I reread it and decided it didn’t say what I had intended. In fact, it didn’t represent what I wanted to say at all. Seeing my fear about this priest so naked and out there surprised and startled me. So, I pulled the piece and edited it. The final version is now posted. I stand by every word that is published on my blog.

In these days of supersonic cyber communication, that ¾ of an hour is all it took. Someone at what is widely experienced as one of the uber-conservative and especially nasty blogs caught it and archived the first draft.

They have made it sound as if I have written a particularly malicious post to a particular priest – without noting the anonymity of the person and the blog and omitting the parts that would have any person concerned about the state of her health.

It’s all scurrilous and salacious and vile.

Truth is, I am mostly angry with myself. I should know this crowd better than that. I am still so naive about the power of blogs and the speed of Internet communication. This’ll learn me.

So, to the unnamed priests with the unnamed blog who has been hurt and insulted by my post, I am sorry. I never meant for you to be linked so publicly to my concerns. Alas, one of your own did that to you. I, perhaps, deserve what I got. You didn’t. I’m sorry about that. Truly.

First: The post was up for FOUR HOURS, not 45 minutes, as The Rev. Kaeton claims.

Second, she wrote this in her original post:

Everyone seems positively ecstatic about this new pregnancy while this poor woman writes about how she doesn’t have the energy to clean her house or herself or her children whom, she muses with mild curiosity, might get their feet cut on the cereal bowl one of them smashed this morning which she simply hasn’t had the inclination to clean up.

And this:

This woman doesn’t title her Blog, “an undercurrent of hostility” for nothing.

There is only one woman who’s an Episcopal priest, married to another Episcopal priest, who runs a blog titled “Undercurrent of Hostility,” which contains an entry about a broken cereal bowl on the floor.

Second:

It’s impossible to buy this “I’m just a technical babe-in-the-woods.” The Rev. Kaeton has been running her blog for quite a while - at least a couple of years, I believe, and perhaps longer, the whole time on the same system (Blogger) - so it strains credulity that she doesn’t understand the difference between “draft” and publish.”

[125] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 11:57 AM • top

Oh my my my.

Sweet Lord.

Kaeton is now by turns cyber-stalking and giving—wait for it—family advice to Anne.

I need to say to you, however, as gently and lovingly as I can, that there are growing numbers of us, lay and ordained, mostly all in “the helping professions” including psychiatrists and psychologists, doctors and nurses and pediatric nurse practitioners, social workers and those whose speciality is in domestic violence and child protection, who grow increasingly concerned and check in on your blog with some regularity.

This raises the question: are these same “helping professionals” checking in on Our Lizzy’s posts with “some regularity”?

This is ominous, frightening and borderline demented. As if Elizabeth hadn’t done enough, she now represents she has marshaled a phalanx of “helping professionals” that seem all but ready to conduct a raid on the Kennedy household.

Elizabeth, please stop trying to “help.”

You have done quite enough.

You have said quite enough.

 

Have you no sense of decency madam, at long last?

[126] Posted by Dave on 07-09-2007 at 12:00 PM • top

To respond to Pilgrim, at 6:15 this morning:  Is it mean-spirited to chase a fox out of a chickenhouse, or a wolf from a sheep pasture?  The kind of raging bias which Mz Kaeton exhibits has no place in the ministry of Christ.  Jesus’ instruction to the Church is, “as the Father has sent me, so do I send you into the world.”  How is the Church going to live the love of Christ in this world, being led by a woman who exhibits such spite against the most basic picture of wisdom and compassion?  This has been at the root of this conflict from the first:  That the Church, which is Christ’s flock, has been made a prey for the most vicious wolves while every effort has been made, consistently and methodically, to separate the sheep from the Good Shepherd. through soothing and confusing homilies link   and progressively more anti-Christ-ian policy changes.

link

[127] Posted by Robert Easter on 07-09-2007 at 12:00 PM • top

Elizabeth Kaeton said…

  Well, fs, some of his minions have already contacted my bishop, the chancellor and my fellow members of the standing committee.

  I might actually be concerned if he had a shred of credibility locally or nationally in the Church - or, anywhere outside of the confines of his own blogosphere.

  He’s all hot and smelly from what he considers a victory about the priest from Seattle. It’s the nature of sharks to move into a feeding frenzy once they smell blood on the water or fear in the air.

  It is a shame. Ah, see how these Christians love one another!

  Mon Jul 09, 12:47:00 PM

Ah ... er ... um ... I’m speechless especially at that last line considering her comments about Anne Kennedy+, wow—Please Rev. Mr & Mrs Kennedy, do as Paula L says and hug each kid for all of us and let Satan be put to shame for turning such vile into love.

[128] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 07-09-2007 at 12:01 PM • top

And, in the non-apology she claims that she “never, not once, in either version of this piece was a particular priest or her blog named.”

Except her original post read: “Let me tell you something: This woman doesn’t title her Blog, “an undercurrent of hostility” for nothing.” 

Well, THAT’S ANN’S BLOG.  So you did identify her blog in your original post, Rev. Keaton.

[129] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 07-09-2007 at 12:01 PM • top

Writing Beckwith won’t do the least bit of good, because you see that deep down he feels the same way. So does Katherine Jefferts Schori- remember her remarks about Episcopagans being smarter than Roman Catholics and having fewer children? There is a remarkable family in Arkansas, the Duggans, who have 17 children. When an article was published about them in a California newspaper the same type of vitriol was written about them. I envy you Ann- I wish I had more kids. Don’t even bother to think about what people like Elizabeth Kaeton think. God bless you.

[130] Posted by via orthodoxy on 07-09-2007 at 12:02 PM • top

Ms. Kaeton states in her further attack on Anne Kennedy “I want to state that never, not once, in either version of this piece was a particular priest or her blog named.”

False.  The name of her blog was mentioned in this line: “Let me tell you something: This woman doesn’t title her Blog, “an undercurrent of hostility” for nothing.” 

Further, Ms. Kaeton apparently believes that serving “weird meals”, “staying in bed all day” as a pregnant woman, and locking oneself in one’s bedroom away from the family on occasion are signs of abnormal and insane behavior from a wife and mother. 

To which I can only say . . . WOW.

Just Wow.

Ms. Kaeton goes on to say this about Anne:

“I need to say to you, however, as gently and lovingly as I can, that there are growing numbers of us, lay and ordained, mostly all in “the helping professions” including psychiatrists and psychologists, doctors and nurses and pediatric nurse practitioners, social workers and those whose speciality is in domestic violence and child protection, who grow increasingly concerned and check in on your blog with some regularity.

Some of us have written your bishop with our concern, but you present an interesting dilemma. You have declared yourself no longer Episcopalian, yet you remain in Episcopal orders, paying into the Episcopal pension, worshiping in an Episcopal church, living in an Episcopal rectory. What’s a caring chief pastor to do?

Others have contacted friends who live in the area who might check in on you - and the children - and gently and quietly contact someone in your church who might stop by and offer a helping hand.

Many of us have raised the question of our legal responsibility as professional helpers who understand our obligation to report situations like this when we “see” or “hear” them. Situations like yours beg the question: What is one’s legal responsibility in cyberspace? It’s an important question which more and more of us will be facing in the coming years, I suspect.”

It is clear that, knowing that she has crossed the line, Ms. Kaeton now needs to claim vast hordes of mental health professionals are reading Anne’s musings about normal life as a mother and wife and actually support Ms. Kaeton’s views that at any moment, Anne will snap and kill her children.

Like I said near the beginning of this thread . . . Ms. Kaeton is repulsed by Anne Kennedy.  I am shocked at the level of her malice.  I have no idea what Anne has ever said or done that has sent Ms. Kaeton to this level of animosity, save that Anne articulately defends traditional Anglicanism and challenges Ms. Kaeton’s gospel.

[131] Posted by Sarah on 07-09-2007 at 12:03 PM • top

Gracious.  The “apology” is much worse than the original post.  I haven’t read Anne Kennedy’s blog, but I expect the posts Ms. Keaton refers to are humorous commentary, probably with humorous hyperbole, about the chaos of having several small children in the house.  Been there, done that, although only with the two God graciously sent us.  Ms. Keaton claims she never intended Anne’s identity to be public (laughably, as Greg points out), and then goes on to say that she has actually notified local people of alleged child abuse in the Kennedy household.  And then blames the whole nightmare on this blog!

If she has unleashed legal consequences from child protective people unnecessarily on the Kennedy household, then I retract my comment that this isn’t actionable.  It may be.

[132] Posted by Katherine on 07-09-2007 at 12:06 PM • top

snarkster,

I must beg to differ with your assessment that the apology now offered by kaeton+ on her blog

ridiculous and half-assed

I believe you are far, far too generous to Ms. Kaeton+. It is accompanied by excuses which can only lead one to question whether any sincerity whatsoever inheres to the “alleged” apology. Consider just this one example:

Truth is, I am mostly angry with myself. I should know this crowd better than that. I am still so naive about the power of blogs and the speed of Internet communication.

The truth is she is gagging on the “bitter pill” of having to make the pretense of an apology. The example quoted above is simply among the first of a litany of proffered suggestions that her original post was actually both completely justified and not unChristian in its content, irrespective of the object of her venom.  Oh! And that, in fact, it was someone else’s fault that anyone might discern to whom Kaeton+ was referring.

Based on my reading of this latest post, the only thing Kaeton+ is sorry about is that she has been “called to account” on her behavior. If any rational person can read her post and consider it an apology, I have no desire to make the acquaintance of that person, nor would I count them among the trustworthy. As to Kaeton, I stand by my earlier judgment of the appropriateness of her ordination.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[133] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 07-09-2007 at 12:09 PM • top

I am long-time reader of Stand Firm but this is the first time I have ever felt compelled to actually post a comment. There are, however, times when one cannot remain silent and must make one’s voice heard.

First, I would like to congratulate Matt/Anne on their wonderful news and I know that God will continue to bless you and your family. I would also like to thank you for all of the hard work that you (and the rest of the Stand Firm group) do in upholding the Christian faith as is expressed in our proud orthodox Anglican fashion. Stand Firm, Kendall, BB, and so many others have become a blessed part of my daily life. As an orthodox student in an overwhelmingly revisionist seminary I understand what it means to “fight the good fight” and to try and defend the faith against this tide of modern-day gnosticism, pelagianism and marcionism. It’s a great source of comfort to know that we are definitely not alone!

Second, I would like to express my disbelief, shock and outrage at Ms. Kaeton’s remarkably hurtful diatribe unleashed on her blog! I have just read her “attempt” at an apology and I think I am even more stunned than before. Rather than take full responsibility for her incredibly insensitive and cruel words she has magnificently turned it around to be a reflection on someone else’s Christian lifestyle - thus, justifying her original intent behind the article. Unfortunately, this should come as no surprise to those who choose to uphold orthodoxy because this has become the reappraiser’s “tactic de jour.” Shame on Ms. Kaeton, and shame on those in her diocese who do not hold her accountable.

Finally, Matt/Anne - I want you to know that my prayers are with you. Anne, your magnificent display of class and grace in this bizarre episode is an inspiration to all of us. Taking your lead, I will also pray for Ms. Kaeton that she would bring Christ into her heart and have peace in her soul and in her life.

Arturius

[134] Posted by Arturius on 07-09-2007 at 12:10 PM • top

Someone who is alien to the Anglican church and blogosphere could find out the name of the person by googling the name of the blog.  Her attempt to shift part of the blame to SF was disingenuous.
Even if one couldn’t find out the name of the person in question by googling, the fact that the person is the wife of one of Kaeton’s cyberspace opponents constitutes foul play.  I would go ballistic if one of the SF contributors wrote something comparable about the partner of Kaeton, Russell, Robinson, or Crew.

[135] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-09-2007 at 12:10 PM • top

Wow.  Obviously Matt and Anne Kennedy are getting under Kaeton’s skin in a serious way.  I think Sarah is correct that Kaeton is repulsed by Anne’s choices in life (I’ve always said that “pro-choice” folk are just “pro” their “choice” and not anyone else’s).

I think there is more.  I think that Kaeton obviously has deep seated rage at what Stand Firm represents.  She has shown flashes of rage at Kendall Harmon also.

I think this demonstrates the supreme effectiveness of the SF and TitusOneNine blogs in frustrating Kaeton’s agenda in TEC.  If Kaeton thought she was winning, she wouldn’t display such cheap, petty rage.

Keep the faith Matt and Anne.  Consider the source.

[136] Posted by jamesw on 07-09-2007 at 12:15 PM • top

Beyond my absolute outrage and disgust as to what was written about Anne+, Matt+ and their children, I was most saddened that this whole vile blog entry was written in the context of Kaeton’s granddaughter’s 6th birthday. 

Here MacKenna relplies she wants to be a Mommy when she grows up, so one day she can be a wonderful Nana like her own Nana.  Wow! What better words could one hope to hear in life.  Instead Kaeton has to stifle her disgust and disappointment?!? 

I agree with someone above the contrast between doting grandmother and militant anti-motherhood feminist in this post is just schizophrenic and utterly tragic.

And the non-apology.  Huh.  Please note in the original Kaeton absolutely specifically identified the title of Anne’s blog:

This woman doesn’t title her Blog, “an undercurrent of hostility” for nothing.

So much for anonymous.
Kaeton would have done far better to pick up the phone and call Anne+ or write her a personal e-mail rather than publish her public non-apology. 

Finally I just have to second what Arturius wrote a few comments above.  I couldn’t say it better:

Finally, Matt/Anne - I want you to know that my prayers are with you. Anne, your magnificent display of class and grace in this bizarre episode is an inspiration to all of us. Taking your lead, I will also pray for Ms. Kaeton that she would bring Christ into her heart and have peace in her soul and in her life.

Amen & Amen.

[137] Posted by Karen B. on 07-09-2007 at 12:18 PM • top

I also agree that I seriously doubt that either Newark’s bishop or standing committee will do anything.  Kaeton isn’t their SC president for nothing, and I doubt that this behavior by her is shocking to anyone.  Just converse with a loon-leftie when they think you are one of them, and you’d be surprised at the hateful bile that comes out of their mouths.  The only surprise here is that Kaeton made this public.

[138] Posted by jamesw on 07-09-2007 at 12:19 PM • top

If there is no response from Newark, is there anyone in that diocese who would be willing to form a peaceful demonstration on the steps of the cathedral? Perhaps someone could deliver a copy of this blog to the door.

[139] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 07-09-2007 at 12:25 PM • top

I’m still stunned by Kaeton’s response. Let’s re-post this just to be sure the threatening tone is clear, sandwiched as it is between what appear to be more conciliatory gestures. Elizabeth has called Anne to the attention of:

...social workers and those whose speciality is in domestic violence and child protection, who grow increasingly concerned and check in on your blog with some regularity.

Why does Kaeton feel the need to point out that these “helping professionals” specialize in “domestic violence and child protection”???! What in the blue-green world does that have to do with Anne Kennedy, or anyone for that matter, who is raising kids and dealing with the same frustrations and general challenges? Who does this person think she is???

So, let’s say you’re a mother with three young ones and one on the way. You’re in the throes of life, the inevitable messy house, runny noses, broken dishes and general episodes of joy and insanity that is the wonderful world of growing a large-ish family. Anyone who has raised or is raising kids will recognize Anne’s reflections as perfectly healthy, normal and part of the everyday exigencies of life, the sort of life that threatens Elizabeth’s entire raison d’etre, the kind of life that Elizabeth abandoned long ago and now actively opposes.

Now someone posts the above. Ostensibly one of your peers. The president of a diocesan standing committee no less. How would you as a mother read this? Would you feel threatened? I don’t have to project too hard to understand how I would feel, or how my wife would feel.

I’d be looking for a lawyer “whose speciality is in domestic violence and child protection.”

[140] Posted by Dave on 07-09-2007 at 12:26 PM • top

I found the blog by googling the name - people do that all the time as I’m sure Ms. Kaeton knows very well.

Anne, FWIW - when I joined the Episcopal Church, our priest and his wife had three sons and she was expecting her fourth child, another son, as it turned out. Their loving family was the big throbbing heart of our church. Yes, things got chaotic at times. No, things weren’t always neat and tidy and there were lots of surprises along the way. But there was so much love, faith and hope - and a lot of that hope was focused on those stair-step sons, who brought so much energy to us all.

Though she has pumped up the level of vitriol in her “apology,” it’s not too hard to imagine what got Kaeton started. She had just exposed herself in her pleasure at her granddaughter’s comments - not a very feminist moment, really. So she quickly reasserted her feminist side by turning what had been a tender moment into a diatribe against an unenlightened mother. You can always make yourself bigger by digging a hole under (and patronising) someone else.

[141] Posted by oscewicee on 07-09-2007 at 12:26 PM • top

After reflecting on this overnight, I have reached a simple conclusion the less I say publicly the better.  So I am limiting my public comments to the following.

Ann and Matt, I would like to assure you that you are in my prayers, for having to deal, with this level of uncalled for attack.  I also wish you all the blessings and joy possible, from all of your children.

[142] Posted by Stu Howe on 07-09-2007 at 12:28 PM • top

I just googled the title of Anne’s blog, as it appeared in Keaton’s first post (still online) and Anne’s blog was the first choice.  So much for anonymity.  I read several pages of Anne’s posts, back to May 23.  The broken crockery which so upset Ms. Keaton must have occurred earlier than that.  However, I see nothing whatsoever in what I read to indicate anything other than a tired, busy mother of small children with a commitment to Christ and a sense of humor.  It is Ms. Keaton’s hostility which is on display, not Mrs. Kennedy’s.  How sad for Ms. Keaton.

[143] Posted by Katherine on 07-09-2007 at 12:32 PM • top

Here is Anne’s post that worried Kaeton+.

http://undercurrentofhostility.blogspot.com/2007/03/news.html

We had been wondering why Anne was so tired and we finally took a home test and it showed that she was pregnant. We were overjoyed. Emma who turns 5 in a week was just learning to use the toaster and, of course, we cleaned up the glass. Anne was trying to be humorous and hyperbolic.

[144] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 07-09-2007 at 12:35 PM • top

i have been reading this all morning, and just don’t know where to start.  How sad.  How very sad.

I don’t post often, but this attack on Anne goes to the bottom of my Catholic being.  My wife and I have practiced NFP for 17 years.  We have 4 children (counting one with the Lord).  They are older now (two are teens) but, when they were young, I swear I used to hear circus music when we went out in public because at times it was just a three ring circus.  It seemed like someone was always sick, someone was always bummed out, someone always walking away in the wrong direction, but we were always joyful we were together as a family.  We weren’t dangerous and the kids weren’t on the brink of destruction.

The overflowing love in a marriage just begs to be creative - to create, to be co-creators with God.  And to do that in a framework of discipline and cooperation with God seems to be a very right way to go.

I don’t like personal attacks and undertones of one person being better than another.  I much prefer letting people’s own words speak for themselves.  We should let this go and move on to other things.

[145] Posted by Paul B on 07-09-2007 at 12:38 PM • top

Matt,

On a slightly better note, is that anything like my 4 ½ year old, learning to pour his own milk?

Stu

[146] Posted by Stu Howe on 07-09-2007 at 12:40 PM • top

That post was from MARCH.  Good grief!

[147] Posted by Miss Sippi on 07-09-2007 at 12:40 PM • top

FYI, the original version of Kaeton’s essay is still available in Google’s cache.

[148] Posted by brob on 07-09-2007 at 12:41 PM • top

Elizabeth and a commenter explain that this is all Stand Firm’s fault.

Someone named JimB:

In the few moments your inital post was up, I read it. I found another reason to pray for someone. I hope she is able to reconcile her various situations. That she is now fodder for the bloghaters is most unfortunate.

Elizabeth responds:

The really, really sad piece is that it was brought on by one of her own - someone I’m certain she considers a friend. So nasty. So unnecessary.

And, can I say it? So unChristian.

I’m still just…speechless. First at the cruelty of Kaeton’s original post. Second that she remains oblivious to the offense. Third that she has all but threatened the Kennedy household with actions from CPS. Fourth that she has the unmitigated gall to blame Stand Firm for the whole episode.

Who ARE these people???

[149] Posted by Dave on 07-09-2007 at 12:43 PM • top

People, it doesn’t matter if you can find Anne’s blog by googling its name, because Rev. Keaton said in her non-apology that she did not identify Anne OR HER BLOG in her original post.

Which is not true.

[150] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 07-09-2007 at 12:45 PM • top

Fr. Matt & Anne,

It was nice of you to give an explaination to the above post entry on Anne’s site regarding the glass breakage, but I for one do not think you need to explain or justify that particular post and incident to us or anyone else for that matter! Dishes and glasses and mugs get broken all the time in homes around the world and most of the time it is by a child that is learning to take their dishes to the sink after a meal or learning how to help in the kitchen. That is an expected thing and then I would believe any good parent would rightly clean up te mess and shpw the child in question how to do that and not let it happen again. What is not expected is for someone like Mrs. Kaeton’s reaction to this and any other post from Anne’s blog in the vile attack on her and you, nor might I add her intrusion into your persoanl life as she has so clearly done. She is clearly in the wrong and someething does need to be done by someone who is above her as an authority!

Please know that you and Anne do not need to expalin anything to us who either know you personally or via this site who love and pray for you both.

[151] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 12:45 PM • top

Thanks for the link, Matt - as usual with Anne’s writing, smart, funny, economical.  We have one little girl and have days like these.

As Katherine said, what we’re seeing is the projection that is so much a feature of the Episcopal Left.

[152] Posted by Phil on 07-09-2007 at 12:47 PM • top

Looking on the bright side… Anne+ your blog stats are gonna go through the roof, honey! You’ve probably just guaranteed to have tripled or quadrupled your readership!!  Gotta love it! wink

[153] Posted by The_Elves on 07-09-2007 at 12:49 PM • top

Who ARE these people???

Dave,
These people are the very part of TEC that preach and spout “inclusivness, and welcoming, and loving all for who they are and not judging one another!”
Word hypocrite come to mind?????

[154] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 12:51 PM • top

Dave, she’s not in the least oblivious to the offense. She’s enjoying the reaction she has provoked and stirring the pot more.

[155] Posted by oscewicee on 07-09-2007 at 12:51 PM • top

“Frankly, you scare the bejesus out of a lot of folk”

Odd words for an apology. After several attempts at humor and snide remarks the only appropriate response I could come up with is 1 John 4:18-19:

“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us.”

Thanks be to God! for the Spirit giving self control.

[156] Posted by texex on 07-09-2007 at 12:52 PM • top

I am with everyone here that both the original post and the subsequent “apology” goes beyond the pale and demonstrates an unbelievable lack of judgement.

It would be too easy and obvious to detail why the two situations don’t equate. It goes way over the line to have the gall to monitor Anne. It takes more gall than I can imagine to admit it. 

What is this? Big Brother? Scary to say, yes it is.

Anyway having said that, I have to say something that will undoubedly be contraversial. I hope that I am not making a similar error in judgement here. Please forgive me if I do.

But sometimes an incident like this can not only be an occasion for prayer for the offender. It can be a learning experience and perhaps, if in fact needful, a wake up call. An unexpected shock can do this particularly well.

I have just been looking at Anne’s blog and while I would never ever go so far as Keaton did, I do have to wonder if maybe she isnt trying to do too much. If she was she certainly wouldn’t be the first or the only woman to do so. (Its almost like a built in feature of our sex.)

Now it could seem this way to me because I am such a slacker, but I can’t imagine the kind of workload that comes with being a (pregnant) mother of three little children, a wife, a priest and a individual person with her own personal ambitions, projects and needs to look after.

While I am sure that she receives plenty of help from her husband (how unlike that poor woman who had 5 or 6 kids and was dealing with profound mental illness with NO help from her husband.) what pushed me to say this was Anne’s account of how there is no summer break for Sunday School and mentioning squeezing in some time to work up a bulletin (I think) amid all of her other tasks.

Now maybe this is usually well within her limits (heck she could really be SuperWoman! wink) and she at times simply experiences normal periods of feeling down and tired as we all do. But I think that all working mothers could profitably ask themselves at times if they are in fact trying to do too much and to explore the possibility of cutting back somewhere, even those who have the willing help of their husbands.

Its just a thought that I address to all in general. Anne may have inspired the comment, but I dont by any means mean to single her out. For her own sake and for all working moms, I just say, consider it. Weigh it from time to time. It might do you a world of good and make life just a little less demanding on you to say no or to delegate more.

It sure would make me feel better for your sake as well as mine since maybe then I wouldnt look so bad by comparison! heh heh

[157] Posted by StayinAnglican on 07-09-2007 at 01:04 PM • top

Yes, thanks, Matt, for the link.  It’s funny, and not objectionable in any way, and full of joy over the new child coming.  Ms. Keaton has serious problems of her own to make this look like a problem.

NFP is a fine idea for couples who don’t necessarily want seventeen children but are willing to welcome those who arrive (and where the wife doesn’t have serious medical problems).  It’s extremely low-cost, it uses no chemicals or medicines and thus avoids side effects, and it calls for mutual respect and commitment.  What’s not to love?  I had a friend who used this and bore two children, both planned.  Probably NFP couples have more children on average because they WANT more.  I can see in my mind’s eye the smiling faces of children I have know who were conceived while their parents were using every other contraception method known in the US at the time.  The extreme hostility to NFP and its practitioners has a root somewhere other than science and medical practice.

[158] Posted by Katherine on 07-09-2007 at 01:05 PM • top

Everyone,

If you write a letter to anyone in the Diocese of Newark’s leadership, you may point them to Google’s cache of the original post, which is here:

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5t0pAZZ1hqUJ:telling-secrets.blogspot.com/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Thanks to brob for digging that up.

[159] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 01:09 PM • top

I’m going to have to take a break from this thread. I’m just completely on the floor about this. Maybe if such vile things had actually been said about my family, God would give as much grace to me as has apparently been bestowed on Matt and Anne as evidenced by their generous and gracious responses…but sitting outside the fray, as it were, my dad-hackles are refusing to lie down.

I will add that we also use NFP, have four kids, and I know that Melissa has days quite like the ones Anne describes. And we wouldn’t trade this life for anything. It’s hard, and it’s also nothing but joy.

So, if you’re reading this, Elizabeth and you find yourself seized with a fit of uncontrollable charity for the plight of my poor spouse, for the love of God please find another outlet for your concern. Build playgrounds!! In Belize!! Yes!!! Lots and lots of playgrounds!! Work that charity out, sister!!

[160] Posted by Dave on 07-09-2007 at 01:15 PM • top

Back on topic, please:

The issue is not whether Anne’s original post from March is benign or not, or about the merits of NFP. It is that an ordained Episcopal priest, the president of the standing committee in the Diocese of Newark, wrote this about The Rev. Anne Kennedy:

I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home.

If this disturbs you as much as it does me, please make use of the contact information at the top of this post.

[161] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 01:16 PM • top

It’s very interesting that all this broohaha has outed Kaeton+ herself as a long-time, regular reader of Anne’s+ blog.  She reads it, loathes it, talks to her CPS friends about it, fears for the Kennedy children (presumably), but doesn’t mention anything until her musings on the occasion of her granddaughter’s birthday. 

What, exactly, is the definition of stalking?

[162] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 07-09-2007 at 01:17 PM • top

Katherine,

extreme hostility to NFP and its practitioners has a root somewhere other than science and medical practice.

There may be others, but one of its roots lies in the narcissism (i.e., self-preoccupation) that seems to be increasingly a mark of the modern era. Think, “having a child interferes with my having the life that I want.” The same root is implicit, if not explicit, in the arguments of the pro-abortion movement—witness the absurdity inherent in the fact that at least two (I would argue that it is three, and I am not including God in that count) persons are involved, yet the pro-abortion side continuously casts the issues in terms of “a woman’s right to choose.” This is, inherently, reverse discrimination based on gender—the mother’s (i.e.,female’s) “right to choose” precludes the other parties’ (father’s, child’s and God’s) rights.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[163] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 07-09-2007 at 01:21 PM • top

StayinAnglican,

I don’t know her, but suspect that if Anne was too busy in her personal life to function adequately, one of the first things she would do is quit spending time blogging about how busy she is wink

[164] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 07-09-2007 at 01:22 PM • top

Oh, good!  I was able to add this postscript to my letter to +Beckwith:

P.S.: I see that Mtr. Kaeton has issued a non-apology in which she lies, claiming that “I want to state that never, not once, in either version of this piece was a particular priest or her blog named.”  Instead, as a simple look at Google cache shows (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5t0pAZZ1hqUJ:telling-secrets.blogspot.com/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us) she posted the name of Rev. Kennedy’s blog:”This woman doesn’t title her Blog, ‘an undercurrent of hostility’ for nothing.”

I find the subsequent lying (when proof of the truth is as close as a mouse click) to be just as disturbing, if not more so, than the original attack.

[165] Posted by James Manley on 07-09-2007 at 01:26 PM • top

If this disturbs you as much as it does me, please make use of the contact information at the top of this post.

It would have disturbed me, had it been expressed as a wish.  Expressed as a fear, it does not.

What, exactly, is the definition of stalking?

Reading blogs without posting comments, apparently. Know anyone who does that?

[166] Posted by essef on 07-09-2007 at 01:26 PM • top

I agree that neither Anne nor Matt should need to defend their values in having children, their decisions regarding family, nor their child rearing.  Nor do I think that Anne should need to defend how she spends her time—I have a lot of energy myself, and she obviously does as well.

And let’s face it.  Apparently Ms. Kaeton has the following standards for adequate parenting: no “weird meals”, no getting tired while pregnant and going to bed all day, and no escaping from the family and locking oneself into one’s private room. 

With standards like that, it is frankly hopeless for wives and mothers anywhere to attempt to live up to them.

May as well offer no explanations then.

[167] Posted by Sarah on 07-09-2007 at 01:28 PM • top

Count me among those who do NOT accept that so-called apology from Kaeton.

[168] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 07-09-2007 at 01:31 PM • top

Kaeton’s I-didn’t-name-nobody defense holds as much water as the broken cereal bowl on Anne’s+ kitchen floor.  By naming the blog site Kaeton gave sufficient information for a reasonable person to make the connection.  That would be the same as if I were to go on TV and state “the person living at 1234 Main Street is a liar and a pervert,” which of course would give enough information for someone to look up the resident of 1234 Main Street and figure out the target of my statement.

[169] Posted by Steven in Falls Church on 07-09-2007 at 01:33 PM • top

Sorry, Greg, for the diversions.  I just find these religious left people are so illogical.

Do you think emails from people no longer Episcopalian would be of any help?  I’m now “Anglican,” and to the Diocese of Newark’s leaders, my opinions are of no consequence.

[170] Posted by Katherine on 07-09-2007 at 01:34 PM • top

Dave wrote:

I’d be looking for a lawyer “whose speciality is in domestic violence and child protection.”

. . . or maybe defamation? (Kidding aside, it’s hard to rise to the level of legally-actionable defamation in such contexts. But EK seems to be trying.)

My reactions are several.  First, Anne & Matt, I am in deep sympathy with you both (actually, with all six of you) regarding the above-referenced personal attack.  I know the consolation of Jesus’ warning that His followers would be subjected to attacks of that kind, or worse, is a little slim sometimes, but do know that I believe you deserve that consolation.

Second:  whatever EK may personally think about Mr & Mrs Kennedy’s reproductive life and what they should and should not do in the bedroom, is this really the time and place for her to vent those thoughts?  I mean, even from the perspectives of politeness, sisterly sympathy, and the like, it is exquisitely rude to make comments such as EK has made in a manner that is likely to come to the attention of the subject of the conversation when she is bearing a child.  No disrespect whatsoever in this—but the noble Mrs Kennedy has quite enough to occupy her mind these days without EK’s invidious sniping; did this somehow miss EK’s attention?

Third—EK uses ‘Natural Family Planning’ (hereinafter ‘NFP’) to refer to a passive ‘taking what God sends’ with regard to children.  I’ve not read all the posts on this thread, and thus don’t know if this has been mentioned above, but I am a little amused at the inaccuracy; NFP is intended to give couples a high level of conscious choice as to when and if to conceive.  So, rather than being a ‘we leave it up to God’ approach, NFP strikes me as being a very active stewardship.  Indeed, it’s been my experience that NFP gives a very deep insight into the wife’s body and mind, her seasons and muliebrity, which I think most people unfortunately never have.  There is a deep beauty in the way God made a woman’s body, and the cycle with which He has ordained that it work reproductively—and I am very grateful for the appreciation of this that my wife and I have received through using NFP principles.

Fourth:  EK does not strike me as a likely Genesis-literalist with regard to how mankind came to be.  I’d guess—I admit, freely, that I am speculating, and will thus leave out any repeated ‘I swear to God’ statements such as preface some people’s speculative fantasies—that she’d class herself amongst the people who look to Charles Darwin, Steven Jay Gould, et al for an account of human origins.  (If my guess is wrong, I’ll gladly recant.)  Setting aside all traditional ideals of motherhood and the value of procreation, and merely from a strictly Darwinistic view, is not EK’s visceral dismay at her granddaughter’s wish to be a good mother and grandmother a symptom of ideological madness?  Is there any positive survival-value whatsoever, from a Darwinistic perspective, to EK’s disgust?  Is ‘geno-suicide’ a word?

Fifth:  Some years ago, my mother (a not-so-socially-conservative alumna of the apparently-soon-to-be-defunct radical-Left Antioch University in Yellow Springs, Ohio, USA) noted the irony of her feminism-tinged rejection of an invitation (from the wife of one of my father’s law-firm partners) to join an organisation called ‘Junior League’, which she saw as something of a distastefully-anti-feminist group.  I think she saw in the group an excessive willingness to take the ‘little woman’ role as sort of a ‘second fiddle’ toward one’s husband.  The irony of my mother’s rejecting that invitation was that not many years later, the woman who’d invited my mother to join—born Sandra Day, and married to my father’s law partner, John O’Connor—became the first female justice of the US Supreme Court.  I have to think that ‘Junior League’ membership seems to have been no crippling blow to Justice O’Connor’s career as either a mother (of three, was it?) or as a jurist.

Sixth:  I’m wondering if others are observing the same thing:  in the past three or four years, I’ve noticed quite a number of socially-conservative Protestant Christians opting to have larger families than I was used to seeing, even amongst socially-conservative Protestants, in previous years.  Is this just the handful of people with whom I’m personally familiar, or is there something akin to a conservative-Protestant baby boom in the works?

[171] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 07-09-2007 at 01:34 PM • top

Steven,

And what about the Episcopal priest married to another Episcopal priest or how she descibes the number of children or the fact that this couple practices NFP as well as all kinds of other details which could only describe the Kennedys

She didnt have to name Anne. She only describes her, her (named) blog and her situation to a “t”.

I guess that gets her off the hook doesnt it? (sar)

[172] Posted by StayinAnglican on 07-09-2007 at 01:38 PM • top

Once again, folks - this is not the thread for a discussion on the relative merits of family planning techniques. We may have one of those at some point in the future, but this is not it.

[173] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 01:39 PM • top

Elizabeth Keaton’s comments are exactly why Feminism has been the greatest disservice to women, perhaps in the history of the world.  At most points in history neither women nor men had the freedom to develop their own roles in life.  Men went into the family businesss… women went into the *family* business.  Or perhaps it wasn’t so defined and separated.

Women have long balanced production and reproduction; duty or career and maternity.  But only in the modern era have we put those two roles at odds with one another.  Formerly they were two sides of the same coin; you raised your children in the context of your vocation.  There was no corporate ladder and there was no great divide between family and career, no juggling two different things.

It is the juggling that often wears women thin.  Sure, my dear, you can be a mommy.  But you must also do your femine sisters a service of taking an outside, separate job.  You must be wired, carefully balanced, and eventually fried.  Otherwise, you are a betrayer of your sisters, who have worked so hard so that you can have this lifestyle.  Don’t forget to be grateful.

You see, this is where it all lands.  Feminism has robbed women of the right to be frustrated with the normal day to day events of having children.  You *may* have them, but they are your hobby, on the side.  Don’t bring them here, and surely you must not complain about them.  You made your bed, lie in it. You may complain about your work (because we honor productivity, career work and consider it a fact of life) but not your family frustrations.  The facts of life are now career, the outsider is the family.  The two have changed places.

It is the only way to be consistent with a culture of abortion.  Did you notice that thread in Ms. Keaton’s musings?  Every child a wanted child… and at the same time, according to her own thoughts, no woman in her right mind would really want children.  How can we deny our “sisters” their “right” to put themselves out of the misery of motherhood.

Who is this capricious god Ms. Keaton worships… a god who damns women with unwanted children?  Ms. Keaton seems to believe that women who in love of God and family offer up control (of their own free will) of their childbearing to the only one who really is in control of it in the first place (ask any woman who has ever conceived while on the pill) are playing Russian roulette with a deity who just wants to see how much it takes to break a woman’s psyche. 

And of course, there is no adoption in Ms. Keaton’s disordered world.  What woman on earth would want to raise another woman’s child, without even the self-gratifying feeling of passing on one’s genetic material, seeing one’s face in another person.  After all, who wants to adopt a little needy ball of problems that will take us out of our career ambitions and the femine duty to our so-called sisters?

I wonder what it is about a little 8 pound bundle of warm helpless flesh that scares Ms. Keaton so.  Perhaps it’s the warmth and helplessness.  I know the first time I held my first 8 pound bundle, I understood that… suddenly there was a person for whom I was willing to trade it all in. All my goals stepped back and pushed his forward.  My dreams went on the chopping block.  His needs came first.  I admired his helplessness as he rested trustingly in my arms and caught a glimpse of the world of the Almighty, in whose arms we are helpless and who honored that frailty by giving all that was dear to him, even his own son, for our benefit.

That’s the God I worship. Not the capricious one.

[174] Posted by Free Range Anglican on 07-09-2007 at 01:40 PM • top

I’m very sorry that this all happened, for both these women. The malicious apology makes the matter worse.

For Anne, I have this to say. I just read through months’ worth of your blog. Nobody could honestly see this as being a dysfunctional family. I nearly died laughing about the mother’s day cake story!! Also, the chicken pot pie recipe looks really, really good, and the hamburger gravy made my mouth water.

My mother was a public school teacher. I know a lot about dysfunctional families. This is not one. I’m really staggered by this and hurting for Anne and her family. My mother died in January, and my father has been long dead. The blog brought back some very warm and loving memories of my own childhood, for which I thank Anne and Matt. No one in their right mind could be concerned that Anne, Matt or their children were living some sort of twisted, endangered life.

[175] Posted by maxedoutmama on 07-09-2007 at 01:40 PM • top

The claim of being “pro-choice”  is clearly revealed to be a lie in cases like this. She is clearly anti Anne’s choice.

[176] Posted by Deja Vu on 07-09-2007 at 01:44 PM • top

Africanised Anglican,

I would say that in regards of my parish only, I would say that the answer to your question is yes!

I think this has definite connection to orthodox belief (some call it conservative. I don’t) I also think this is why we will not only outnumber the liberals some day, we will also eventually outlast them wink

[177] Posted by StayinAnglican on 07-09-2007 at 01:44 PM • top

Catholic Mom,

I’ve deleted your post about celibate priests and women’s ordination. This is exactly the kind of off-topic distractions our comment policy is designed to prevent. Please don’t bring them up again in this thread.

[178] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 01:52 PM • top

In response to Greg’s exhortation (not to mention my own sense of outrage at this whole episode) I’ve sent emails to all members of the SC of Newark.

[179] Posted by Dave on 07-09-2007 at 01:52 PM • top

I would keep this ‘Nana’ as far away from my daughter as possible - and only allow visits in my presence.  The anger and evil in her words are beyond comment.  ‘By their fruits ye shall know them’. 
Blessings to Matt and Anne.

[180] Posted by suebee on 07-09-2007 at 01:53 PM • top

I tried posting this on Rev. Kaeton’s site, but couldn’t get it to work.

I recommend Chapman’s “The Five Languages of Apology” for reading for Rev. Kaeton. An apology should 1) show regret 2) take responsibility 3) offer recompence 4) show repentence 5) ask for forgiveness.

I did not find anything apologetic about this apology.  She uses her ‘apology’ as an opportunity to attack orthodox Anglicans and blame them for being appalled over her blog. Let me try to write a more appropriate apology for Ms. Kaeton.

“Dear Ann, I regret the pain that I have caused you and your family. It saddens me that I let my baser nature dominate what should be a pastoral concern that I have. I was wrong to air such words publically rather than approaching you individually. This will never happen again. Will you please forgive me?”

Does anyone think that these words would NOT be met with full-fledged forgiveness?

[181] Posted by selah on 07-09-2007 at 01:53 PM • top

After reading the evil words in the original blog by Keaton and the lies in her even more outrageous “apology”, does anyone doubt the reality of evil?  Does anyone doubt that Satan just loves hiding behind the clerical collar willing to house his presence?

Thank God for faithful Christian leaders like Anne+ and Matt+.

[182] Posted by hanks on 07-09-2007 at 01:56 PM • top

I plan on reading Ann Kennedy’s blog from now on. It sounds wonderful, honest, and needed.  I loved Ann Lamott’s “Operating Instructions.” If Ann Kennedy’s blog is anything like that, then I’m excited about.

I wonder why Rev. Kaeton hasn’t referred Ms. Lamott for therapy? Oh, yeah, because Ms. Lamott is a LIBERAL Christian.

[183] Posted by selah on 07-09-2007 at 01:58 PM • top

I’ve deleted your post about celibate priests and women’s ordination. This is exactly the kind of off-topic distractions our comment policy is designed to prevent.

I see your point—however, it was really a continuation of Sarah’s comment.  In any case, what about the rest of my post (which really was the main point)?

The thing about the internet is that everything you say is available to every single person on the planet, including the certifiably mentally deranged, from now until all eternity. 

There are VERY VERY few things I want to put out there in cyberspace with my real name attached to them.  Except on blogs that are limited to small circle of insiders specific to a particular area of interest or expertise where everybody in the small world knows each other, I never use my real name in cyberspace.  I don’t say anything to identify myself, including what state I live in or exactly how many kids I have or what their genders are.  There are just too many nut cases out there.  Or too many situations where, 20 years later in some totally different circumstance, my words are going to be used against me. 

Now, Anne IS in a circumstance where she is part of a small circle of insiders who all know each other.  So it’s appropriate that when she comments on this blog she uses her real name.  But if I may have the audacity to advise her (hopefully putting my comments far far from those of Ms. Kaeton) I would say that she should keep her personal life—even humorously described —off the internet.  It’s advice I would give any woman, but especially one in her position.  The world is full of wackos—even those who are NOT certified and who hold important “responsible” positions, as you are finding out.

I’m not trying “blame the victim” here, so please excuse me if it sounds like that.  But there is a big difference between writing in a parish bulletin or a screened group of online moms and on a wide-open access-to-everybody blog site.

BTW, I publish a column in a very obscure technical journal and a few months ago I got a snail mail letter from a prison inmate who read my column and wanted advice from me.  If I were a man, I would write back.  As it is…I haven’t

[184] Posted by Catholic Mom on 07-09-2007 at 02:06 PM • top

This jabbing, jeering, unrepentant statement by Kaeton is remarkable: “his minions,” “all hot and smelly,” and “sharks [moving] into a feeding frenzy once they smell blood on the water or fear in the air.”
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4248/#78316

Well, I certainly smell the fear in Kaeton’s air.

If she continues in this vein, she risks alienating her more moderate allies. Nor will it look particularly good in the secular press.

We might yet see the mighty put down from her seat and the proud scattered in the imaginations of her heart.

[185] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 02:07 PM • top

Ms. Kaeton seems to have “moved on” from this episode and is now focused on posting updates on her trip to Belize. My great fear is that she will attempt to place this terrible attack clearly in the past without any further acknowledgement of the discontent (to put it mildly) she has caused. Much like Jim Naughton tried desperately to make the Anne Redding case disappear I fear that the Diocese of Newark will “circle the wagons” around Ms. Kaeton and make this sorry episode disappear without sort of accountability.

The Lord, however, is almighty and we imperfect beings can accomplish great things through His grace and strength. It was the orthodox who helped maintain light on the contradiction of a priest in the church of Christ who also professes to be a follower of Islam. That situation seems to have been handled pastorally yet firmly by a bishop who exhibited a great degree of maturity and responsibility. I feel it will be up to the faithful to continue to shine light on this situation as well in hopes that there will eventually be some accountability.

Greg, is there any way we can get a periodic update on the Diocese of Newark’s response and/or handling of the egregious situation?

[186] Posted by Arturius on 07-09-2007 at 02:11 PM • top

So, to the unnamed priests with the unnamed blog who has been hurt and insulted by my post, I am sorry. I never meant for you to be linked so publicly to my concerns

So she is only sorry for the public linking. Apparently usually when she predicts a mother will kill her children she usually keeps it anonymous?

But since your name is out let me threaten you with contacting the state, your bishop and members of your church because you are obviously a sick person and I am a caring “chief pastor”. One with a ton of friends with letters after their names who agree with me.
But you write nice sermons.

Situations like yours beg the question: What is one’s legal responsibility in cyberspace? It’s an important question which more and more of us will be facing in the coming years, I suspect.

I don’t know about your legal responsibility but I would think your moral one would be to shut off your computer now and smash the keyboard before any other insane rantings masquerading as apologies escape.
As to the Kennedys I would take these threats seriously and contact a lawyer. Children’s Services are misused constantly to harass, just ask any home schooling group.

[187] Posted by Rocks on 07-09-2007 at 02:18 PM • top

Ah yes, Kaeton, Redding, Jake, et al-The gifts that just keep on giving.

The only problem is, they have shot themselves in the foot so many times, there is very little foot left to stick in their mouths.

I have sent emails to every link available. I am now commencing to hold my breath until responses have been made.

the snarkster

[188] Posted by the snarkster on 07-09-2007 at 02:19 PM • top

Let me quickly add that should Ms. Kaeton bring herself to sit down with Anne and apologize, or at the very least should Anne feel as though there is an acceptable resolution then the matter will be closed in my book. It will continue to serve as a perfect example of un-Christian behavior (certainly unworthy of someone who wears the collar) -nevertheless I will move onto other matters. Until that time, though, I reiterate that it is probably up to those who reassert the Gospel and believe in personal accountability for some redress from these incredibly hateful comments.

[189] Posted by Arturius on 07-09-2007 at 02:20 PM • top

The woman is obviously clueless.  I am more and more convinced that TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada contain two different religions.

[190] Posted by Kate S on 07-09-2007 at 02:21 PM • top

When I read the first EK article last night and then her statement of victimization (sorry, but it doesn’t seem like an apology to me), all I could think of was Madelyn Murray O’Hare, and her son, the born-again Christian.  It’s amazing the impact someone can have on the next generation or two and not even know it. Sounds like the little girl in the story is a blessing from God!

I am a mother of two very lively, healthy, intelligent children, who are a bit older than the Kennedy children….but I remember plenty of times when pregnant being the kind of tired Anne speaks of.  We are blessed that Anne uses much of her energy to minister to so many of us through her blog…I have learned so much from it….and I thank God that there is a younger generation (like Matt and Anne) who are there to be leaders now and in the future.  If EK and her cronies did write to Anne’s Bishop, I am sure she can request copies should she want to….  It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if a letter or letters have been written, because Anne’s is a voice that reaches many and the “listening process” doesn’t include listening to someone like Anne.

If she doesn’t think much of NFP or big families, she isn’t going to enjoy being in Belize….and I don’t think the folks there would appreciate her thoughts on the subject, either.

Anne, I for one can’t wait to see the good that I know the Lord will bring from this bad situation.

[191] Posted by Liz Forman on 07-09-2007 at 02:22 PM • top

“We might yet see the mighty put down from her seat and the proud scattered in the imaginations of her heart.”

If ECUSA were less beholden to Kaeton’s radical sisterhood, that is precisely what would happen.

Consider the fate of a doctrinally conservative white heterosexual male parish priest thought to have used a prohibited word or made a particularly insensitive comment about a PC group. His Standing Committee days would be over, and he’d be lucky to keep his parish job.

[192] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 02:23 PM • top

Dave,
I am snail mailing my 8 page letter to Bishop Beckwith & the Standing Committee of Newark today, but if you could e-mail me off thread with the SC’s email addresses I would love to send it to them via internet as well to cover both bases…..if you know what I mean wink

[193] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 02:24 PM • top

“The only problem is, they have shot themselves in the foot so many times, there is very little foot left to stick in their mouths”

Snarkster: Not quite the “feeding frenzy” Kaeton had in mind.

[194] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 02:27 PM • top

Catholic Mom,

After re-reading that part of your post I will leave it at this:

I understand your point, but as I have noted repeatedly throughout this thread, the problem here is not that Anne posts under her real name. The problem here is Elizabeth Kaeton’s original post and, increasingly, her bizarre ‘apology.’ Anne should be able to post about the goings on in her daily life without being subjected to sick musings by anyone, let alone another priest and someone in The Rev. Kaeton’s position.

So yes, your post does sounds like “blaming the victim.” It sounds oddly like someone blaming the victim of a rape because she was dressed provocatively in public.

THAT IS ALL I WANT TO HEAR ON THE MATTER, FROM YOU OR ANYONE ELSE. EVERYONE PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ON TOPIC.

Snarkster, thank you for writing.

[195] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 02:38 PM • top

One Day: I got the emails from Greg’s links above. (Scroll to the very top.)

[196] Posted by Dave on 07-09-2007 at 02:38 PM • top

Mrs. Falstaff, there is only One Church and One Gospel, but there is a counterfeit gospel and TEC’s leadership proclaims it.  For more on this, you might find my essay posted today at Drell’s Descants informative:  TEC’s Mission to the World.

[197] Posted by Alice Linsley on 07-09-2007 at 02:41 PM • top

and as an addition to the contact list at the top, Bishop Beckwith’s email is mbeckwith[at]dioceseofnewark[dot]com.

[198] Posted by lauren on 07-09-2007 at 02:50 PM • top

What seems most appalling and worrisome to me is the not-so-veiled threat of reporting the Kennedy family for child abuse/neglect or some such thing.  I guess I’m very sensitive to this issue, having had to defend our family against some vague rumblings along this line, because we choose for me stay at home and homeschool our three. (And mostly because, I truly believe, that our society cannot comprehend that I chose to give up my profession as a medical doctor—a psychiatrist, LOL!—and wanted lots of children!  Two of ours went to Jesus before being born here on earth. Hasn’t Ms. Kaeton read that children are a blessing from the Lord?)
But, will this be a new tactic against those that disagree with the re-appraisers?  It’s a very scary possibility.
And that why this episode needs to be shouted from the rooftops and exposed for the hypocrisy, uncharitable and unbiblical behavior that it is.
Truly, it is Mrs. Kaeton that needs help, especially since she is charged with the spiritual care of those in her parish.  Lord have mercy on those poor folk!
Jane, Edwin’s wife

[199] Posted by Edwin on 07-09-2007 at 02:50 PM • top

Greg, is there any way we can get a periodic update on the Diocese of Newark’s response and/or handling of the egregious situation?
Posted by Arturius


I concur with Arturius

[200] Posted by Deja Vu on 07-09-2007 at 02:53 PM • top

It is unfortunate that E Kaeton has not taken Anne Kennedy’s post as the edgy humor it is.  Erma Bombeck, Phyllis Diller, Joan Rivers, Betty Macdonald and many other women have made careers (and a good bit of money) with similar reflections ...........

[201] Posted by citykid on 07-09-2007 at 02:57 PM • top

Ms. K writes:

...social workers and those whose speciality is in domestic violence and child protection, who grow increasingly concerned and check in on your blog with some regularity.

Some years ago, when my wife was experiencing some depression after the birth of our 3rd son, a local member of the white glove brigade sicced the Children’s Aid Society on us because she was “concerned” about us. Notwithstanding that this was another in a long list of spurious complaints made by the woman, the CAS sent an investigator. It was one of the most frightening experiences of my life, as the CAS has the power to take my children away for their protection.

We called in some help and got the place spic and span. We never heard from the CAS again after their follow-up visit, but we are now in their database. We have a very active and physical 2 year old who bruises easily. He tripped into a pew while running at church and got a bruise on his forehead that turned into a double shiner. We are so paranoid about another CAS visit that when things like this happen (this is the 3rd time with him) we curtail our normal activities like visits to the park and shopping en famille.

When I read apologies like the above, so full of “concern”, I feel threatened to the point of irrationality. So I will pray that Ms. K reads some of the comments here and will realize that many of us have cause to feel that her words do us “spiritual violence”, to use a pet phrase of our worthy opponents.

Matt+ and Anne+, congratulations on your family and I pray that the end result is a healthy and happy baby. “The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and grant you peace.” - Numbers 6:24-26

[202] Posted by Bill in Ottawa on 07-09-2007 at 03:00 PM • top

Thanks Dave,
Snail mails & e-mails sent!

[203] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 03:03 PM • top

Anne, you and your family are in my prayers.  So is Ms. Kaeton and her family.

[204] Posted by Courageous Grace on 07-09-2007 at 03:06 PM • top

I concur about an update. I just got a mailer-daemon on Michael Rehill’s e-mail address. It appears his inbox has reached its quota! Gee! Wonder why????

[205] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 03:08 PM • top

Jane, Edwin’s wife, wrote:

But, will this be a new tactic against those that disagree with the re-appraisers?  It’s a very scary possibility.

I share your concern.  I note another thread in which it’s reported that the Maryland, USA government has approved a policy of pro-homosexualist indoctrination for the government schools, with an accompanying comment that the parents’ right to direct their children’s education is trumped by the alleged need for such propaganda.

What we see in EK’s remarks and her threatened actions is, unfortunately, something about which I’m afraid orthodox Christians fall short of the ‘wise-as-serpents’ standard.  We tend to think that we can compartmentalise a person’s sinful agenda so as to be able to assume that they will engage in fair play on other fronts.  It is a very questionable assumption that a person (or ‘church’) that is on a trajectory whose end-point is somewhere in the depths of the Biblical lake of fire is nevertheless going to ‘play nice’ whilst on that downward path.  I am afraid that, more and more, we orthodox Christians are going to need to develop prudent ‘back-watching’ habits.  I also think that we can predict that our children will be the specifically-chosen targets for attacks of spiritual, institutional, ideological, and physical kinds.  It cannot long escape the attention of the likes of EK that the Annes and Matts of this world will continually outnumber the self-destructive EKs—unless the Annes and Matts are stopped through outside force.  EK has stated a willingness to attempt using the state as a tool to implement her desires in this regard.  It would not be misplaced planning, I think, for Anne and Matt (and the rest of us) to develop habits of prayerfully evaluating our families’ and children’s vulnerabilities to likely increases of such hostility, efforts to disrupt our families through use of state instrumentalities, revocation of non-profit status for our churches and organisations, and even potential physical assault.  Paranoia, no—but developing an eye for our vulnerabilities and a little forethought for how to minimise them, yes.

[206] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 07-09-2007 at 03:11 PM • top

I honestly believe that for Kaeton and others reared in the feminism of the 1960s and 1970s, it is downright offensive that someone like Rev. Kennedy would not only have many children, but actually enjoy them. I also believe it is also downright unfathomable to Kaeton that a woman (or child) living in 2007 could even consider being a mother as a fulfilling future. Maybe this is why families in Episcopal pews are so rare. I mean, what young family wants to join a church led by activists from the 70s that are hostile toward femininity and traditional families?

[207] Posted by DavidBennett on 07-09-2007 at 03:18 PM • top

Timeout for a second.

This thread had me down, so I cruising a social networking site (in this case Multiply.com) which I joined to try to reconnect to some of those in my past in a ‘safe’ manner, also as a way to share a witness as I post thing that debunk some stereotypes of Christian—(plan somewhat is working as I had dinner with an old friend and his girlfriend didn’t ask for my testimony, she demanded it).

In the recent posting was this blurb of a friend of a friend:

Jul 9, ‘07 6:35 AM   “...Get that Boy mobilized!...”
Silly baby. He’s almost crawling, but backwards! He lifts himself up and gets his butt up, then pushes out with his arms, inevitably pushing himself further from his goal. Need to put backing up horn on that butt, doo doo doo do. I’m trying to give him a lot of floortime. Get that boy mobilized. Well, it’s time to play with the baby, gotta go! :D

Chase was born Nov. 17th, 2006.

Another post title was:
”...Listening to the baby’s heartbeat was absolutely amazing…”

I don’t think this lady is married, one photo she has pink hair in ‘04, her ‘95 HS photo she sporting a Mohawk (no ‘safety’ either), in many ways there not much that would lead me to believe there is much crossover between her world and SF folks.

It suddenly struck me, this lady (and several like her who post their family photos) has more in common with Anne Kennedy+ and she has shown more respect for motherhood that Kaeton+! In fact I bet Anne could talk to her about religion easier, even though I’d presume Kaeton+‘s variation would be more to her liking (a spirituality that demands nothing) but Anne could connect over being a mom and the intrinsic value therein.

It sad to think the secular world can find truths and the Lord’s blessing quicker than a TEC priest.

[208] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 07-09-2007 at 03:21 PM • top

I seem to be the 210th commenter here and probably anything I would say has been said exceedingly well above.  I will add my prayers for protection for Anne+ and Matt+ whom I have come to admire and respect for their stand for orthodoxy. Because of the kind of vitriol that Elizabeth Kaeton regularly spews (and this is just an especially egregious example) she should not be in any kind of leadership position in her parish or diocese. People who make personal attacks like this should not call themselves Christians. Immediate and full repentance is in order. It will be interesting to see if she has the cojones to apologize for the damage she has done.

[209] Posted by Sue Martinez on 07-09-2007 at 03:25 PM • top

I think Anne is healthy to write about the real, messy and some days even chaotic parts of being a Mom. I would think that accepting being a less than perfect Mom and having less than perfect kids, actually keeps the family safe from the kind of extreme future Kaeton predicted.
So I see a real contradiction. I thought reappraisers were claiming God loves everyone just the way we are. But Kaeton seems actually to prefer a sterile perfection to the messy imperfection of Anne’s fertility.

[210] Posted by Deja Vu on 07-09-2007 at 03:35 PM • top

The Susan Smith case, to which Sarah Hey refers in her 09:22 AM posting, is a little more complex than Ms. Hey’s posting indicates.  Smith had indeed been involved with a boyfriend who had just terminated their relationship, stating that the reason for his ending the relationship was that he did not want to deal with children.  However, as a teenager, Susan Smith had repeatedly been sexually abused by her stepfather, who had resumed the sexual relationship with Smith, this time “legally”, in the months immediately preceding the murders.  Although the SC Department of Social Services had intervened to halt the teenage abuse, no charges were ever filed against the stepfather.  The stepfather is, coincidentally, nephew to a then-sitting justice of the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and former governor of and senator from the state of South Carolina.  No-one, of course, should assume that this fact played any part in his never being charged with the abuse.  The stepfather was also a prominent supporter of the Christian Coalition.

In short, this was a complicated case, with a history considerably longer than the single broken relationship.

[211] Posted by Lapinbizarre on 07-09-2007 at 03:52 PM • top

I seriously doubt Kaeton regrets her posting at all.  I’m sure she believes every psychopathic word she wrote.  I also seriously doubt anyone in the Diocese of Newark will find anything at all offensive about her commentary.

I simply can’t fathom why people object so passionately to a choice to have a big family.  I have 3 pre-schoolers and yes, it is difficult to keep the house clean and there is a lot of chaos and hard work- but it is absolutely worth it.  My wife gave up a professional career (horrors!) to raise the kids full time but it was her choice and while there are days she wants to run screaming from the house she would definitely do it again. 

Now for an image that would drive Kaeton to absolute madness, here’s a pic of my cousin who is a pastor of a Mennonite church, and his 12 (!) kids.

[212] Posted by Nevin on 07-09-2007 at 03:54 PM • top

I haven’t quite figured out the blockquotes yet so I will say that Ms. Kaeton recently made this comment on her blog:

“I fear that, with this crowd, nothing will appease their lust for blood.”

Unbelievable - the hits just keep on coming! Just another example of the reappraisers once again straining the bonds of affection (in this case to the worst extreme) and then blaming the offended party for being called to accountability. Typical.

[213] Posted by Arturius on 07-09-2007 at 03:54 PM • top

As if the truly sick rantings and speculations by Kaeton weren’t enough on their own, what really concerns me is the larger picture here. First, the new PB tells the world that Episcopalians are too “well-educated” to have several children; then, a committee (of which Kaeton is prominent) commits the entire church to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which celebrates abortion.

When considered in total, this is looking less like the mad musings of a hateful woman and more like the mindset of TEC. The Lord may be using Kaeton to put his faithful on guard. We need to be forewarned. The Kennedys are wonderful, strong servants of the Lord who have scores of friends and admirers to support them. What, though, of the simple family who find themselves under such attack by the TEC minions who disapprove of their family size and lifestyle? Do large families now have to worry that their rectors will be calling the authorities?

Anne+ and Matt+, I am so deeply sorry for the vicious attacks you’re enduring. I’m thinking, though, that the Lord may be calling us all out of our complacency to see the real threat of assault that the reappraisers may be perpetrating against the building blocks of his faithful church! Kaeton was bold enough to make this threat very vitriolic and very public—would she be so emboldened without the assurance that her views are supported? We must pray.

[214] Posted by teatime on 07-09-2007 at 04:00 PM • top

Nevin,

I wonder if your cousin’s wife also gave up a career or chose to never pursue a career in the first place.

That is even worse. Kaeton would probably have to reach for more than some dry crackers. Ah the horror of a traditional family! Woe! oh the despair. What a nauseating concept.

[215] Posted by StayinAnglican on 07-09-2007 at 04:02 PM • top

I posted this comment to the post in question at Keaton+‘s Telling Secrets blog.  As I assumed, she deleted it.  I have pasted it in blockquote below:

If what you posted had been directed at ANY reappraiser by a reasserter the howls of “hate speech” would have sounded for their inhibition and deposition.  Here is some of what you deleted from your post:
—————————————————-
Don’t believe me? Think I’m overstating my case? Well, after reading a few of her entries, I have seriously considered calling the local authorities.

I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home.

Of course, she’ll say that “God told her” to do it. Postpartum depression will be the postmodern villain. From the days even before Lizzie Borden, female hormones have always been an easy scapegoat. If the writers of Genesis had known about them, PMS would have been specifically named as one of the results of “The Fall.”

Neighbors and church members will appear on the five o’clock news and say what a “lovely family” they were and how shocked, (SHOCKED!) they all are. One woman will shake her head sadly and say how her husband was “devoted” to her and the children. Another will wipe a tear from her eye and report that they were such “committed Christians” who were dedicated to “home schooling” their kids. And I can guarantee that someone from her church will opine that there is so much pressure from “those feminists” to pull families like this apart.
—————————————————-
What are we to think of a mind that can produce this kind of sickness?  Matthew 15: 18-19 “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts,..., false witness, slanders.”
We will have to account to God for every idle word, let alone these deliberate words.

For a picture of a strong, resourceful, business-minded, well-respected, successful woman that defies your barefoot, perpetually pregnant stereotype, read Proverbs 31: 10-31.  That is, when you can spare a few minutes from knocking over strawmen.

[216] Posted by Milton on 07-09-2007 at 04:06 PM • top

Milton, judging by the number of comments here today (223 and counting), she’s had her hands full over there deleting almost as many…

Poor girl…

[217] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 07-09-2007 at 04:09 PM • top

Kaeton was unable to make a sincere apology without taking further hits at Anne. Why is it that?
Wanting a sincere apology = a “lust for blood”?
Maybe for her it would be. Maybe for all of us, in a deep sense it is. Making a sincere apology, recognizing where we have been wrong, have wronged others, ... dying to self.
Demanding someone do that feels like the sharks are circling with a blood lust. Because we ourselves will surely die.
So if you haven’t done it in a really long time, or never, if you don’t believe in forgiveness of sin, if you don’t believe in the Resurrection, maybe all you see is the circling sharks.

[218] Posted by Deja Vu on 07-09-2007 at 04:10 PM • top

Milton: the fact that you only care about the knocking over of strawMEN shows that you are a hate monger of the worst sort.  For too long, the church has ignored the knocking down of straw women, and been unjust toward straw LGBT people.
Just wait until Bishop Waynick’s Title IV Canon revisions are completed…we’ll fix you and your kind!

[219] Posted by Northern Plains Anglicans on 07-09-2007 at 04:12 PM • top

NPA: Bwahahahahaha!  ROTFL!!!  Actually I thought Keaton+ might say something similar (with tongue firmly not in cheek) if she had posted my comment.

[220] Posted by Milton on 07-09-2007 at 04:16 PM • top

For those paying attention, I have removed some off-topic comments later in the thread. If your comment was removed, you have not necessarily gotten a yellow flag.

Catholic Mom, please contact me via Private Message, but do not post another comment here about your original topic, or anything else in the way of explaining why you think I’m incorrect, or how our comment policy should be enforced. I will be happy to discuss this with you off-thread.

[221] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 04:24 PM • top

I’m coming to this late, and don’t really have anything to add except to say that I’m praying for all involved. Kaeton’s post is absolutely appalling, and her so-called apology is just about as bad. It’s conduct unworthy of a pastor, and I hope that the protests of all the Episcopalians here will be heard by her bishop and/or the Standing Committee.

[222] Posted by David Fischler on 07-09-2007 at 04:25 PM • top

I’m thinking about TU&D’s analogy between teaching God’s law on sexual morality and Catholic Mom’s advice to Anne.
I think we proclaim the reassuring Gospel of God’s universal love and forgiveness before we detail God’s limits on sexual behavior. Those in sexually immoral situations need to hear the Good News of the loving God before they can turn to God to help them change their ways.
Similarly, someone who has been violated needs to hear messages of love and reassurance. And only after fully comforting the victim and assuring her of her rights,  is it time to talk about possible changes in behavior.
If a woman has been raped, we don’t necessarilty want her to respond by donning a chador for all public excursions.
While I acknowledge the truth of Catholic Mom’s advice, I like Anne’s blog very much and I think it has a ministry function. I trust Anne to make a decision about whether to keep the blog so open later, when she has had time to absorb the current events.

[223] Posted by Deja Vu on 07-09-2007 at 04:27 PM • top

It’s an appalling comment to be sure, and to whoever mentioned Erma Bombeck, I tend to think of Anne Kennedy as the clerical Peg Bracken.

[224] Posted by C. Wingate on 07-09-2007 at 04:41 PM • top

Catholic Mom, please contact me via Private Message,

I already said I don’t know how to do this.  But I will stop posting.

[225] Posted by Catholic Mom on 07-09-2007 at 04:43 PM • top

There are two ways: one of life, and one of death;
And great is the difference between the two ways.

                                  —Didache 1.1

[226] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 07-09-2007 at 04:43 PM • top

Catholic Mom,

Click “Your Account” at the top of the page. Click “Private Messaging,” then compose a message addressed to me. Use the little magnifying glass above the “Recipients” field if you need help filling it in.

Or, email me directly at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

[227] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 04:49 PM • top

I have read Anne’s blog….and in doing so, thought how very like Erma Bombach’s writings

[228] Posted by Dee in Iowa on 07-09-2007 at 04:54 PM • top

I saw the ‘apology’ and two thoughts immediately sprung to mind.  The first is that Ms. Keaton apparently really believes that Kennedy+ is a clear and present danger to herself and others.  While expressing such concerns via a public blog is a bad idea (as she has found out) genuine concern for another’s well-being is perfectly Christian and admirable.  On the other hand, Keaton offers no reasoning for her worry other than that having a large family causes Anne stress.  Does she really believe that anyone with 4 or more children is in imminent danger of becoming psychotic?  Or perhaps it is, as the subtext suggests, Anne’s belief in traditional values and religion.  That all conservatives are insane is an occasional implication of radical propaganda but it is rarely so blatantly expressed.  And it is, of course, deeply offensive.  Surely Rev. Keaton knows the anger and pain that GLBT people feel when they are decribed as disordered or unnatural.  To imply that those who follow traditional lifestyles (or even just one aspect of those) is similarly hurtful.

Secondly, her attempts to ignore her own role in this mess and lay the blame on SF are both bizzare and dishonest, as commentators have pointed out above.  Kennedy+ was clearly identified in the initial post by the explicit naming of her blog.  And if Keaton’s concerns are justified, she should most certainly be identified so that she can receive prayers and support.

Finally, I would like to note that she characterizes SF as “mean” I characterization I have seen elsewhere, but honestly don’t understand.  The bloggers (and for the most part the commentators) here are neither profane no cruel, but honest, forthright, and abounding in Christian love.  It is not “mean” to disagree with the current direction of TEC nor to state that disagreement forcefully.  Nor is it muckraking to point out what others have published publicly,  e.g. in a diocesan newspaper.

Pax Christi vobiscum,
Eluchil

[229] Posted by Eluchil on 07-09-2007 at 05:11 PM • top

Eluchil,

Re: the “mean” people here. I do think we cross the line in terms of snideness and sarcasm at times, but I agree that most of the perceived cruelty from conservatives is based on the fact we don’t agree with our Worth Opponents. If you take a look at Thinking Anglicans you often see terms such as “fundegelical” and attributing beliefs concerning homosexuals to conservatives I have never heard from the pulpit, in print, online or in casual conversation.

[230] Posted by texex on 07-09-2007 at 05:18 PM • top

What amazes and sickens me is seeing the re-appraiser’s comments on that blog. They mostly have the attitude that what was written is “no harm, no foul” or that it’s beautiful. If I ever needed proof that liberals are under a strong demonic delusion this is it. I’m so glad that God freed me from that delusion a few years ago!

[231] Posted by MattJP on 07-09-2007 at 05:32 PM • top

I’ve been reading and thinking about this most of today.  I have also read Kaeton’s blog—both the original post and the revised post and the subsequent apology.

On the revised post: Tom Head (TH) posted a wonderful comment.  I recommend it to you as the model of fairness and objectivity.  TH, I commend you and miss your posting over here at SFIF.

So much has already been said that I need not add anything else here.  But I do wish to send my prayers and affections to the Kennedy family during this “strange day.”  They will continue throughout this week.

I will also keep Rev. Kaeton in my prayers, for as long as one is breathing, there is hope of repentance and healing.

Susan

[232] Posted by Summersnow on 07-09-2007 at 05:39 PM • top

The Apology version 3.0 is now available at http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/. Be sure to read all the comments. Enjoy.

the snarkster

[233] Posted by the snarkster on 07-09-2007 at 05:44 PM • top

Alice:  My point stands.  There are two different religions trying to co-exist under the Anglcian banner.  One is Christian, the other is not.

[234] Posted by Kate S on 07-09-2007 at 05:52 PM • top

AfricanisedAnglican,

(D)eveloping an eye for our vulnerabilities and a little forethought for how to minimise them, …

is definitely not paranoid behavior. It is something which the late Col. Jeff Cooper called “being in Condition Yellow,” and it is a habit which is well worth inculcating, in a variety of contexts. Not the least of these contexts is that of being alert to pending legislation designed to overturn or weaken the “Rule of Law.” I strongly commend it to everyone who is a responsible person, and has attained the “age of reason.”

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[235] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 07-09-2007 at 05:53 PM • top

Anne,

My and my family’s prayers will be with you and your family. It is incredible that any of this should have happened… our Master assured us that the world will hate us even as it hates him, yet some attacks seem especially vile. But the Lord is with you and with your family.

Ms. Kaeton,

May the Lord grant you true repentance.

farstrider (the <b>other/b> fs)

[236] Posted by Fr. David McElrea (formerly farstrider+) on 07-09-2007 at 05:54 PM • top

I read the comments at EK’s site and found something interesting:

All I can do is sit back and let the whole world see and know them by the fruits of their works - their hell-bent path to destroy anything that does not follow what they believe to be “God’s plan and will for us.”

Wow, I thought, she gets it, but she thinks it’s BAD!  Then I read:

Thankfully, God has much for me to do than to worry about all of this.  I’m off to Belize, God willing. It’s an enormous blessing.

... and she says it like it’s GOOD!  ....

Is following what you sincerely believe to be God’s will a good thing or a bad thing?  Answer, per reappraisers: DEPENDS on if it suits me or not.

[237] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 07-09-2007 at 06:01 PM • top

By all means click on The Snarkster’s link and read Apology Vesion 3.0 and the comments. In the new version Rev. Keaton essentially describes herself as the victim (!) in this entire incident!! In addition, Rev. Keaton has an “Amen Corner” of commenters on her blog to console her.  Wow.

[238] Posted by Publius on 07-09-2007 at 06:02 PM • top

Teatime:  *My* rector has nine kids.  I don’t think I have to worry about him making any nasty phone calls….

[239] Posted by Kate S on 07-09-2007 at 06:03 PM • top

Rev. Keaton has an “Amen Corner” of commenters on her blog to console her

...among them Tobias Haller.

Amazing.

[240] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 06:07 PM • top

Thanks for pointing out Apology 1.2 on Keaton’s blog.  She does apologize for having used the name of Anne’s blog, thereby making her identifiable.  She apparently has also realized that her mention of child welfare professionals having been called could put her in really hot water.  But those implied threats to the safety and integrity of the Kennedy household, once uttered, can’t just be withdrawn by deleting them from her blog, unless she did NOT in fact contact said professionals and was lying when she said she did.  Was she merely blustering, or did she really commit this egregious act against people she doesn’t know and has never seen?  Only time will tell.

We should hold all the Kennedys, born and unborn, in prayer; and Ms. Keaton also.

[241] Posted by Katherine on 07-09-2007 at 06:15 PM • top

Snarkster,
Thanks I did this earlier and all I can say about those comments are well…..I would expect nothing less. We are truly a family divided. Which reminds me of a plaque that my grandmother, God rest her blessed soul, used to have hanging on her wall:
“The family that prays together, stays together!”
How sad that we have become so divided that it is not a line that is drawn in the sand but rather a ravine!

[242] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 06:17 PM • top

There is one thing that I can comment on that I did notice and even though this is not a competition, that being said, how may comments of support and adulation for Ms. Kaeton did she recieve on her blog comments?

How many have Matt+ & Ann recieved here on SFIF with not only support but prayers and praise for the great job they are doing with their family and from many people who only know then via this site?

I think those numbers pretty much speak for themselves! Amen.

[243] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 06:25 PM • top

In apology 3.0, Kaeton said:

I have learned that apologies are never enough for those whose original intent was to charge, headfirst and sword drawn, into battle. No apology will ever be good enough for those for whom the fight is the thing. Some of you will note that this is still true of the Consecration of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.

1. So once again, we’re the bad guys in this.  Hmm.
2. Uh, I don’t remember hearing that apology for consecrating Robinson.

[244] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 07-09-2007 at 06:28 PM • top

Rev. Keaton has an “Amen Corner” of commenters on her blog to console her

...among them Tobias Haller.

And Taomikel!!!

LOL
Saints be praised!

[245] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 06:29 PM • top

Katherine: I agree that Kaeton can’t undo the damage just by excising the worst statements from her blog.

But she didn’t say she had actually contacted child-protection officials, only that she had “seriously considered” calling them. That’s bad enough, though, as she impliedly accuses the Kennedys of child abuse.
_ _ _ _ _ _

I wouldn’t be surprised if at this moment Kaeton is trapped in the vise of her own bitterness and pride. Her wiser friends will tell her to offer a real apology and withdraw from a battle she cannot possibly win. But oh, the bitter gall of doing so!

[246] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 06:29 PM • top

[comment deleted at poster’s request]

[247] Posted by HeartAfire on 07-09-2007 at 06:35 PM • top

“I have learned that apologies are never enough for those whose original intent was to charge, headfirst and sword drawn, into battle. No apology will ever be good enough for those for whom the fight is the thing.”—-Elizabeth Kaeton

Yeah, so why bother?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Kudos to Tom Head for the criticism he posted on Kaeton’s blog.

[248] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 06:44 PM • top

Reading Ms. Kaeton’s original post and later “apology” (aka. self- justification), post brought to mind:

1 Corinthians 11:
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 

And from the BCP (1979) - page 318

An Exhortation

<i>This Exhortation may be used, in whole or in part, either during the Liturgy or at other times. In the absence of a deacon or priest, this Exhortation may be read by a lay person. <i>

… I therefore call upon you to consider how Saint Paul exhorts all persons to prepare themselves carefully before eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup.

For, as the benefit is great, if with penitent hearts and living faith we receive the holy Sacrament, so is the danger great, if we receive it improperly, not recognizing the Lord’s Body. Judge yourselves, therefore, lest you be judged by the Lord

Examine your lives and conduct by the rule of God’s commandments, that you may perceive wherein you have offended in what you have done or left undone, whether in thought, word, or deed. And acknowledge your sins before Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life, being ready to make restitution for all injuries and wrongs done by you to others; and also being ready to forgive those who have offended you, in order that you yourselves may be forgiven. And then, being reconciled with one another, come to the banquet of that most heavenly Food.

And if, in your preparation, you need help and counsel, then go and open your grief to a discreet and understanding priest, and confess your sins, that you may receive the benefit of absolution, and spiritual counsel and advice; to the removal of scruple and doubt, the assurance of pardon, and the strengthening of your faith.

Ms. Kaeton, and indeed all of us, need to heed the Word of the Lord.

[249] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 07-09-2007 at 06:44 PM • top

FIGHT!???? Who struck the first blow???? Who started a fight????? It wasn’t Anne!!!!! LOLOLOL!!!!!

Geesh these people never cease to amuse me!

[250] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 06:46 PM • top

An apology is often “enough” if it’s a real apology.  I wonder whether a heartfelt personal apology to Anne, preferably by telephone, would have ended this whole matter at once.
As it is, quibbling about how long it took for reasserters to see and respond to the original post is absurd, and in no way apologetic.  Forty-five SECONDS was too long for that post to be up!

[251] Posted by Miss Sippi on 07-09-2007 at 06:51 PM • top

Thanks, Irenaeus.  I am not too swift at finding old posts, so I can’t check it.  If she didn’t say she had called child protective services, it may have been that she said she had contacted someone she knows in the area, perhaps even in the Kennedy’s congregation, to keep an eye on the matter.  At least that’s what I remember.

In any case, as it is for slander, once this kind of insinuation is made it cannot be completely withdrawn.  The victim may cry plaintively, “Where do I go to get my reputation back?” but the sad answer is that the slander or innuendo is always out there.

[252] Posted by Katherine on 07-09-2007 at 06:52 PM • top

R. Scott Purdy,
Excellent!!! And I might add that there is a commenter over on the “Communication from the Bishop of Rhode Island Concerning Ann Holmes Redding” thread that was in need of these exact quotes to answer a question that she had. I hope she is reading this now!

[253] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 06:52 PM • top

Katherine & Irenaeus,

Here is the quote from the original post:

Don’t believe me? Think I’m overstating my case? Well, after reading a few of her entries, I have seriously considered calling the local authorities.

I save the original post so I could cut and paste it to my letter to the Newark SC & Bishop Beckwith!

[254] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 06:59 PM • top

In Sarah’s book, she details why she uses the term “worthy opponents” rather than other more pejorative monikers. I don’t think there is any more worthy than Tom Head, who is not really an opponent at all but differs with conservatives but seeks an amicable and just separation. Tom’s comment on EK’s website should be required reading before any StandFirm commentator wants to go on a tear against all the liberals.

[255] Posted by robroy on 07-09-2007 at 07:00 PM • top

R. Scott Purdy: Right you are. Yet ECUSA’s radical reappraisers have devised a “Baptismal Covenant theology” of cheap grace, which seems to obviate the need for personal repentance.

[256] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 07:02 PM • top

Every woman that I know (and I know a bunch) would love to don our battle gear (that is mops, brooms, baby bottles, etc) and take care of this one. 

s’funny. I thought it was only “boys” over here on SF. Must be another thing that Kaeton got wrong.

[257] Posted by David Ould on 07-09-2007 at 07:03 PM • top

One more observation and then I must repent for spending this much time today on this whole mess:

If EK really suspected that the Kennedy children (or Anne+) were in danger, then she was duty bound to report them to the authorities - or else she was COMPLICIT.  Isn’t that the Law?

If, on the other hand, she was just indulging in a bit of off-the-chart hyperbole to illustrate the “more-liberated-than-thou,” “I-thank-you-Lord-that-I-am-not-like-that-Pregnant-HOUSEFRAU” pontificating, then perhaps it should have remained a thought.

She got busted and then worked up a sweat trying to wiggle out of it.

Blessings, on the Kennedy’s - count it all joy…

[258] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 07-09-2007 at 07:07 PM • top

This afternoon I sent the following to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

The head of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Dioceses of New Jersey, Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton, posted the following about a fellow priest in the Diocese.

“There is one woman, an Episcopal priest married to an Episcopal priest, whose writing sometimes flat out scares the BeJesus out of me. She is pregnant with their fourth child, the youngest of whom is not yet one year old. They are using “Natural Family Planning” - letting “God decide” on how many children they will be blessed with and resigning themselves to gladly take whatever God gives them, giving God the praise and glory.

Don’t believe me? Think I’m overstating my case? Well, after reading a few of her entries, I have seriously considered calling the local authorities.

I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home.”

More can be found about this story:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4248/#78547

The Episcopal Church is being lead by individuals who are way out of sync with the average parishioner.  The O’Reilly Factor would be doing the Episcopal Church a great favor by reporting this outrageous behavior.

[259] Posted by TraditionalOne on 07-09-2007 at 07:10 PM • top

“FIGHT!???? Who struck the first blow???? Who started a fight?????”
—-One Day Closer

Anne Kennedy’s gracious response is deeply moving—-and contrasts tellingly with Elizabeth Kaeton’s fulminations.

[260] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 07:14 PM • top

For the record, since folks are now beginning to try to recall the exact wording of the first version of the “Apology” is the section where Kaeton wrote about contacting various folks to keep an eye on the Kennedys:

I need to say to you, however, as gently and lovingly as I can, that there are growing numbers of us, lay and ordained, mostly all in “the helping professions” including psychiatrists and psychologists, doctors and nurses and pediatric nurse practitioners, social workers and those whose speciality is in domestic violence and child protection, who grow increasingly concerned and check in on your blog with some regularity.

Some of us have written your bishop with our concern, but you present an interesting dilemma. You have declared yourself no longer Episcopalian, yet you remain in Episcopal orders, paying into the Episcopal pension, worshiping in an Episcopal church, living in an Episcopal rectory. What’s a caring chief pastor to do?

Others have contacted friends who live in the area who might check in on you - and the children - and gently and quietly contact someone in your church who might stop by and offer a helping hand.

Many of us have raised the question of our legal responsibility as professional helpers who understand our obligation to report situations like this when we “see” or “hear” them. Situations like yours beg the question: What is one’s legal responsibility in cyberspace? It’s an important question which more and more of us will be facing in the coming years, I suspect.

Note, I do appreciate that Kaeton has revised her apology.  The one currently posted would have done much better for her to start with.  But for better or for worse, hundreds of us saw the original and her words are out there.  The quoted section above helps keeps the various comments posted here in correct context.

[261] Posted by Karen B. on 07-09-2007 at 07:14 PM • top

Irenaeus - Exactly! I read all of Anne’s comment on EK’s site and believe me she demonstrated the right way to fight back, if you will! With a kind and loving response. But my comment above was in direct accusation of EK’s words of “No apology will ever be good enough for those for whom the fight is the thing.”
Fighting is not our thing….defending seems to be our thing lately and the fight began with Ms. Kaeton’s vicious attack on Anne! And again no one is calling thisa “fight” but Ms.Keaton!

[262] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 07:19 PM • top

In Apology 3.2, Elizabeth Kaeton says:

I have learned that apologies are never enough for those whose original intent was to charge, headfirst and sword drawn, into battle. No apology will ever be good enough for those for whom the fight is the thing. Some of you will note that this is still true of the Consecration of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.

and

Perhaps your writing, taken in context, will prove not to be so much of a worry and a concern.

Perhaps your writing…will prove not to be so much of a worry and a concern.  Perhaps your writing.  This is not an apology at all.

[263] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 07-09-2007 at 07:26 PM • top

In the new version Rev. Keaton essentially describes herself as the victim (!) in this entire incident!!

This episode between Ms. Kaeton and Ms. Kennedy reminds me of something I saw recently on a TV show called “The View.” 

Maybe this can be seen as “The View - Episcopalian Version”.  Ms. Kaeton can play the role of Rosie O’Donnell and Ms. Kennedy can play the role of Elizabeth Hasselbeck.  smile

Each of them has their supporters….

And Rosie did think that she was the victim….

[264] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-09-2007 at 07:30 PM • top

No apology will ever be good enough for those for whom the fight is the thing. Some of you will note that this is still true of the Consecration of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.

I’m with Newbie in not recalling this apology being made.

And btw, isn’t the Other Side always complaining about the use of “V.” in the man’s name?

[265] Posted by James Manley on 07-09-2007 at 07:49 PM • top

Rev. Keaton’s post makes me weep.

[266] Posted by laudlady on 07-09-2007 at 07:55 PM • top

I remember being told as a child that you don’t say, “I’m sorry, but ....” and dish out all the reasons why you were really right in the first place. A simple - and sincere - “I’m sorry” is all that’s required.

[267] Posted by oscewicee on 07-09-2007 at 07:56 PM • top

Sigh.  Does it need to be pointed out that, if it weren’t for her theological views Anne Kennedy would be a feminist poster child?  She has an advanced degree, she has a feminist-approved career, she is married to a man who clearly loves her, she is intelligent (she writes well), and somehow she manages to balance all of this while simultaneously raising a family.

But . . . she’s theologically orthodox, so obviously she’s on the verge of committing infanticide.

The amateur psychologizing is disturbing, and shows either an incredible ignorance for someone employed in a helping profession, or an equally incredible insensitivity to women who really do suffer from mental illness.  I would point Ms Keaton to a thoughtful reflection on this issue by Kathryn Greene-McCreight—Darkness Is My Only Companion: A Christian Response to Mental Illness (Brazo Press, 2006)—another wonderful orthodox female priest who also loves her husband and her children.

[268] Posted by William Witt on 07-09-2007 at 07:58 PM • top

CindyT in Tex had an interesting take. She suggested that Kaeton was basically saying

I thank you Lord that I am not like that Pregnant HOUSEFRAU

Having read through Kaeton’s website, both the posts and her replies to comments, I think CindyT is right. Kaeton comes across as self-righteous, self-congratulatory, taking pride in superiority.
She can’t come up with an apology that doesn’t reassert that underlying claim to superiority.
A genuine apology would require a sincere humility which is exactly what she seems to be trying to avoid experiencing.
Of course that way of being requires a corresponding works righteousness, and, consistent with this theory, she is now off on a trip to build a playground in Belize.

[269] Posted by Deja Vu on 07-09-2007 at 08:11 PM • top

When I have been tempted to write things, which if I were to cool down a bit I probably would not send, I practice the following:
1. When tempted to write a blistering blog or email- consider the thatLord is standing right there in the room with you (he is you know)- now read the blog entry (this is important) OUT LOUD to him as though in conversation. Do you get a thumbs up? Do you hear your tone of voice? would he, does he agree with you or disagree. Is the Holy Spirit admonishing you to be kind?
2. BEFORE you click the submit key- read it again this time remember that your tone of voice can NOT be heard by other readers, does Jesus agree with your writing?
3. Lastly, yes, read it again ask yourself does my writing Give Glory to God and edify the person it is being written too or about.
No ! to any of the above means reword- think about it and probably DO NOT SEND/SUBMIT IT. Until you know that your writing brings an issue to light in KINDNESS.

At my job, before I send that email which may blast a fellow co-worker or manager because I am perhaps a little hot concerning an issue, before I click the send button, I practice the above- I can not tell you how many times, it has kept me out of hot water. In her own blog, Rev Kaeton, said that her granddaughter said that she wanted to be a mommy but also that she wanted to be kind. How we treat others is very significant to Jesus. Elizabeth- I pray that you will humbly submit your apology in loving kindness, repent, ask for forgiveness and sin no more. I know that God will forgive.

[270] Posted by A Sheep on 07-09-2007 at 08:12 PM • top

The Kaeton passage quoted by Karen B.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4248/#78568
should be classified not as an apology but as a threat.

It also reeks of condescension.

[271] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 08:26 PM • top

I’ve emailed everybody on the above list with an email and will send by snail mail a letter to the Rt. Rev.  It wasn’t eloquent, I mostly let the Rev. Keaton’s words speak for themselves.

[272] Posted by wdgreen340 on 07-09-2007 at 08:29 PM • top

The Kaeton passage quoted by Karen B. reminds me of what the N.I.C.E. folk in C.S. Lewis’ novel, That Hideous Strength, might say as they tightened their grip on Mark and Jane Studdock.

[273] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 08:30 PM • top

More thoughts, after further musings:
EK wrote:

one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van

Anyone got any leads on where you can even GET a minivan with the capacity for SIX rear seats—especially of the ‘child seat’ variety?  Mazda MPV allegedly has five, but the middle/back one has only space for an 8-inch-wide individual if you’ve got a child seat on either side (which leaves it with only 4 functional kid spaces; no room for Nana, et al.), and I don’t think a Toyota Sienna or a Honda Odyssey is much better.  wink

[274] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 07-09-2007 at 08:31 PM • top

The Kaeton passage quoted by Karen B.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4248/#78568
should be classified not as an apology but as a threat.

A malicious threat. Big Brother is watching you.

[275] Posted by oscewicee on 07-09-2007 at 08:35 PM • top

Anne and Matt
Rev. Kaeton’s unkindness (probably too shallow a word for what you may be feeling) has to hurt. My prayer for you both and your family is that you all will rest and sleep deeply tonight, Cast your care upon the Lord tonight. Sleep well knowing you are loved by all here and especially by the Lord.God Bless you.

[276] Posted by A Sheep on 07-09-2007 at 08:48 PM • top

Here are some thoughts at the Cafe.

bb

[277] Posted by BabyBlue on 07-09-2007 at 08:58 PM • top

wdgreen340,
I also e-mailed the Newark SC members and the Bishop and also followed up by mailing the letter to them all via snail mail. But, I have big reservations that these letters will do anything except wind up in the delete file or the round file. Bp. Beckwith is very much a Spong man and I can’t help but feel that we will be the only ones who will be appalled and upset over this and nothing will come of it at all and Ms. Kaeton will continue on her merry way unscathed and undisciplined. I now this sounds much like a defeatist attitude but the track record isn’t very helpful when it comes to these reappraisers!

[278] Posted by TLDillon on 07-09-2007 at 09:13 PM • top

This is who they are folks.  This is what they think and say to each other when they think no one is listening.  Every once in a while one of them will let their guard down and put it in writing.

[279] Posted by dcsintx on 07-09-2007 at 09:27 PM • top

Kaeton’s rant reminds me of this passage from The Lord of the Rings in which Saruman, stymied in his attempt to win King Theoden by flattery, says what he really thinks:

“What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll around on the floor with their dogs!”

This outburst, of course, said more about Saruman than anything else.

Kaeton’s outbursts are similarly scornful and offer the same sort of unintentional self-revelation.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

“The track record isn’t very helpful when it comes to these reappraisers”

True. ECUSA’s radical revisionist rulers stick together. But there is everyone else: active reasserters, apathetic reasserters, self-identified moderates, institutionalists, moderate reappraisers, and secular reporters. All should be appalled, and some will be.

[280] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-09-2007 at 09:48 PM • top

Soon to be published on Elizabeth’s site (??)  :

Dear Elizabeth,

I’ll keep it short. 

Advice for the next time you display contempt for God’s gift of fertility, by humiliating a mother:

Apologies filled with creepy “we’ll be watching you,” and “you scare the bej***s out of us,” statements, probably won’t be well received. 

Also, since Anne (let’s not pretend that her name is anonymous anymore, shall we?) isn’t playing the victim, how is it that you are?  “Lust for blood” ?
Please.

Your behavior over the past couple of days has been contemptuous, outrageous, brazen, and creepy.  I find no freedom in it, or in you.  [comment edited]

Better yet, seek professional help. 

- Moot

[281] Posted by J Eppinga on 07-09-2007 at 10:03 PM • top

A post of support for the Kennedys. Been enjoying Anne’s blog for some time.

Kaeton got viciously personal then AFAIK didn’t have the honour to apologise when caught and in fact escalated it: ‘bottom feeders’?

I’m glad that women have more opportunities now too (they don’t HAVE to marry and be mothers) but…

The anti-child bias does seem part of a trend. Reminds me of Dr Jefferts-Schori’s statistically true but telling remarks to the New York Times magazine back in November: we have fewer children because we’re richer and better educated. (In short, we’re snobs - isn’t that an image the Episcopal Church is trying to get away from? Of all the old things to keep or revive, why that?)

The upper middle class, whose fashions in mores etc. really call the tune for much of TEC (that class now accepts gay weddings so guess what?), has felt that way for some time about people who reproduce a lot.

http://aconservativeblogforpeace.pageshow.net

[282] Posted by The young fogey on 07-09-2007 at 10:09 PM • top

Anne and Matt,  I am so sorry that you had to read something like this about you and your beautiful children.  People said awful things to me at times (Lady in the grocery store, “Why don’t you get yourself fixed so this doesn’t keep happening to you? ”  Me, But..but…but I WANT all my children.”  )  But nothing even approaching this. 

I totally identify with everything Anne says about the chaos and the mess…and I think mine was far worse at times, actually. With children some chaos is normal.  Some expressions of comic despair about it are normal…and are similar to things that, say, nurses, say among themselves about the difficult conditions on a hospital floor..and I am sure other professions which deal with people and in which people work under a lot of stress, have this sort of humor as well.  Anyone who knows you knows that that is the sort of thing Anne’s comments were.  But then anyone who knows you sees your beautiful children come to church neatly dressed and very well behaved for such little children, and also clearly happy and relaxed and quite self possessed for such little ones.  Anyone who knows you can see there is nothing pathological about your family.  Thats what is so disturbing about these remarks by EK; she made these horrible statements based only on “She has 3 kids with another on the way” and “She says her house is messy.”  She didn’t think she had to know you to make such a judgment.  She apparently also didn’t take the basic first step required by empathy; that of saying, “How would I feel if someone said I was likely to kill my own child?”  She apparently was unable to conceive that there was a real person Anne Kennedy out there, not just a representative of ideas she dislikes
Again, I am so very sorry you had to hear such things said about you.  Knowing you, you won’t sue or retaliate, and will eventually even be about to pray for “those who do revile you and despitefully use you.” 

By the way, last weekend we were taking Kristin to Boston to stay with her brother for the summer while she studies chemistry at BU, and this week we are at the Oratory in Toronto for our vacation/ summer school program.  We will be back at church next Sunday.

God bless you both and comfort you,
Susan Peterson

[283] Posted by eulogos on 07-09-2007 at 10:11 PM • top

Moot,

Please throttle that post to Kaeton a bit.

[284] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-09-2007 at 10:51 PM • top

One Day Closer - I suppose you are right.  No, actually I’m certain you are, but I felt like I should do something.

[285] Posted by wdgreen340 on 07-09-2007 at 10:56 PM • top

Just a quick one to add my support to Matt and Anne.

What Elizabeth Kaeton wrote was disgusting, pure and simple, and her apology is nothing of the sort. She clearly thinks she is in the right and everyone else is in the wrong.

Please Lord, end this madness soon.

[286] Posted by Derek Smith on 07-09-2007 at 10:56 PM • top

I went and commented on her blog; I don’t know if she will publish it. If not, here it is, so people will know what she won’t publish.

The Iliad and the Odyssey contain a meme to the effect that once “his words had crossed his teeth’s barrier”  they could not be recalled.  Once something is said, it has an effect.  And you are the person who has said it and has caused the effect.  Do you think that because you took down what you originally said, that the awful image you created isn’t still in Anne’s mind?  How would you have felt if someone suggested that you might kill your daughter, when she was small?  Believe me, such feelings are common to all human beings, and what you would have felt, Anne also feels. 

I know Anne, have been to her house.  My husband is a member of their church and I go there with him and see their children every week.  They are beautiful, happy, well behaved, neat and clean (but not excessively so) children.  I can assure you that all those professionals you talked about do not need to be “concerned” about Anne and her children. ( The implied threat to the security of her family in those remarks really puts me at risk of speaking intemperately here.)  Anne has a doctor for her pregnancy who knows her well, and another qualified and well respected family physician who knows her and her family well. I am sure they will support her and speak for her should anyone presume to interfere simply because she is having her fourth child in a relatively short span of time.
And by the way, despite the number of her children, she also preaches upon occasion,and does it well, is pursuing an additional degree and directs many activities at church.  She is an amazing, competent, lively and witty woman.
You simply did not know whereof you spoke.

You have come closer to a real apology, but a real “I’m sorry,” would be better. 

Susan F. Peterson

[287] Posted by eulogos on 07-09-2007 at 11:03 PM • top

Ms. Kaeton at long last makes an attempt at Keeping it Simple Stupid.
I applaud her efforts , the jibes at others still resides to a degree but at least she it starting to get it. I would ask her this though.
Assuming you changed the first draft after reading what you wrote, seeing it as bad, and not in response to the outcry it elicited would it have been so much to just say ‘What I posted was wrong and if it offended anyone I am sorry?’ Period?
Regardless of the “rightness” of my argument…regardless of I thought no one reads this….regardless of my technical ineptitude….regardless of who is pointing out I was wrong…..REGARDLESS of whether this apology will be accepted or is ever enough.
Even if Greg and everyone here are minions of the devil himself…
It makes no difference, I was wrong and I am sorry, period.
Instead of complaining of the blood your enemies have drawn with the sword YOU placed in their hands would it not have been better to simply disarm them by taking the sword away? Wouldn’t it have been “nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” than to “take arms against a sea of troubles”?
Did it help to follow up with an apology so lacking in discretion as to be outdone only by your “first draft?
I was wrong……I’m sorry…..Period.


To the Kennedy family:
It used to take courage—indeed, it was the act of courage par excellence—to leave the comforts of home and family and go out into the world seeking adventure. Today there are fewer places to discover, and the real adventure is to stay at home.
Author: Alvaro de Solva

It may not be good everyday but I will pray that you continue to enjoy the adventure.

[288] Posted by Rocks on 07-09-2007 at 11:18 PM • top

“Questions, Frodo. Questions that need answering…”

Here’s something that’s puzzling me. How does one reconcile this statement in Kaeton’s first post, at ~3PM on Sunday:

Well, after reading a few of [Anne’s] entries, I have seriously considered calling the local authorities.

with this statement in her follow-up “apology” (v. 1.0), first posted at 11AM today:

I need to say to you [Anne], however, as gently and lovingly as I can, that there are growing numbers of us, lay and ordained, mostly all in “the helping professions” including [1] psychiatrists and [2] psychologists, [3] doctors and [4] nurses and [5] pediatric nurse practitioners, [6] social workers and [?] those whose speciality is in domestic violence and child protection, who grow increasingly concerned and check in on your blog with some regularity.

So let me get this straight.

At ~3:00PM on Sunday Kaeton has “read a few posts,” and has “seriously considered calling the authorities.”

But by 11:00AM on monday, she claims not only has she “read a few posts, not only has she considered “calling the authorities,” but in fact she has called professionals, and has not just begun reading Anne’s blog on Sunday and perused a few entries, as was implied. She apparently has put together an impressive collection of degreed and licensed professionals, all of whom she claims are in total agreement with her concerns regarding the Kennedy household, simply by virtue of Anne’s blog entires. And she did this quite some time ago apparently; at least long enough to amass no less than two each (she uses the plural in each case) of the following professions: psychiatrist, psychologist, doctor, nurse, pediatric nurse practitioner, social worker, in addition to an unspecified quantity of “those whose speciality is in domestic violence and child protection.”

By my count that’s 12 professionals in no less than 6 vocations, and apparently more. They are all deeply concerned about the Kennedy household. Because of Anne’s blog entries. They’re all watching Anne’s blog, “with some regularity.”

So let me get this straight.

An even dozen or more degreed, ordained or otherwise licensed professionals are collaborating on an ad hoc diagnosis of the Kennedy household via Anne’s blog entries.

More questions arise. Did Kaeton recruit these people? When? Have they been coordinating their efforts? What are their professional opinions, and if they have had serious concerns long enough to visit Anne’s blog with “some regularity,” why have they not contacted the Kennedys themselves, surely the most obvious and professional action in such a situation?

And have any of these professionals come forward since this controversy erupted, to defend Kaeton’s caring analysis of the Kennedy clan, or at least to corroborate that such a group does in fact exist?

Maybe all of these questions have good answers. I personally would love to hear how such cyber-diagnosis is conducted, and also how such an impressive number of busy professionals found a common cause in Anne’s shattered cereal bowl.

But from what I can tell right now, somewhere between 3pm on Sunday and 11am on Monday, something doesn’t add up.

[289] Posted by Dave on 07-09-2007 at 11:29 PM • top

WOW.  Bless you Anne and Matt.  Obviously Keaton is in a very sick place.  God upholds all things righteous and rebukes all things which are not of Him.  Let us pray that Keaton is healed of her sickness.

[290] Posted by Spencer on 07-09-2007 at 11:40 PM • top

I just happened to be reading through Proverbs 14-15 when Kaeton’s vile comments became known. I found so many of the contrasting couplets so right on track. A few examples:

Pro 15:28 The heart of the righteous considers how to answer,
but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things.
Pro 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked,
but he hears the prayer of the righteous.
Pro 15:31 The person who hears the reproof that leads to life
is at home among the wise.
Pro 15:32 The one who refuses correction despises himself,
but whoever hears reproof acquires understanding.

[291] Posted by Bill Cool on 07-10-2007 at 12:23 AM • top

Keaton is quite a vicious person, I take it?  The threats she issues using the concept of multiple “professionals” are rather unprofessional, at the least.  And BTW—reputable professionals in the therapeutic fields do not make diagnosis via blogs.  Can’t imagine the poor caliber of the “professionals” she is talking about—if they even exist.

[292] Posted by Pat Kashtock on 07-10-2007 at 12:42 AM • top

Dave, Do you think one of Keaton’s “helping professionals” could be Nurse Ratchett?

[293] Posted by Betty See on 07-10-2007 at 12:43 AM • top

Folks, I went and did it.  I wrote out an email to the listed members of the Newark standing committee, and right now I’m sitting on it.  It wasn’t something that could fly over a nice tea service without threatening a cup or two, but I do not have a knack for understatement.  I know there are a lot of wiser heads than mine in this forum, so let me hang a copy of the letter here that whosoever would might offer their comments.  It’s not “making nice” but a spade is always gonna be a spade, and a skunk in the church house is gonna stink no matter what creative and p.c. euphemisms are suggested.  Well, here’s the letter, and I’m wide open for advice. 

To the Standing Committee:

I feel compelled by great sadness to write you this evening, as I am sure each of you at least has read excerpts from the Rev. Keaton’s attack on the Rev. Kennedy for exercising her God-given choice in bearing and raising children, and for using her gift as a writer to employ a measure of self-deprecation in her personal blog site.  We are called to follow Jesus Christ:  None of us is free to invent our own standards of life and godliness, and neither must we impose such an arbitrary “truth” on others.

The kind of venomous and unreasoning spleen which was unleashed on Mother Kennedy reflects the soul of a deeply disturbed individual, and I sincerely pray that this sort of view is not reflected in the life and ministry of the Diocese of Newark.  To threaten a woman, simply on the basis of one’s refusal to appreciate her love for her children or her humility, with interference from law enforcement or child services has no place in the Church of Christ, whatever the sign reads, and the tradition of love and toleration that is the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Way generally, must find her venom to be utterly defiling.  With no threat of hyperbole, an organisation which does embrace that kind of arrogant bile has left the love of God, and should be welcome in no Christian communion, of any confession, on this planet.  That Eliz. Keaton or her supporters should claim to be “tolerant” and “inclusive” is the very height of hypocrisy.

I beg you, in the name of Christ, our faithful and merciful High Priest, that you will deal with this issue in wisdom and honesty as before the Lord.  The Lord is at hand.

Most sincerely,

Robert

[294] Posted by Robert Easter on 07-10-2007 at 01:09 AM • top

The more I think of it the more I am convinced that the Keaton post signals that the current “dialogue” is getting dangerous.  Her post was obviously sick and disturbing.  But to engage people like her in a cyber dialogue simply stirs the emotions of some people whose emotions are already stirred to a froth.  Experience tells us that there are those who can’t deal with lively verbal debate.

Things need to tone down all the way around.

[295] Posted by Going Home on 07-10-2007 at 01:19 AM • top

Robert Easter: Though unwise, I do have experience in saying less than I think and feel. FWIW, I’ve sent you some comments via Stand Firm e-mail.

[296] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-10-2007 at 01:34 AM • top

A phobic rage against fertility and life issues, which has been forming this new Episcopal Church from within, has a poster figure in Elizabeth Keaton.  At the last General Convention, hers was the shrillest voice in crushing the resolutions to remove the church from the RCRC membership. Resolutions to remove the church from membership in this pro-abortion group were duly created and presented in committee, but Keaton dominated the Social and Urban Affairs session where the resolutions were stopped.  Bishop Ihler of that committee conceded that the membership in question had not ever been voted by a General Convention. The Executive Committee had joined without consulting the church members (many of whom do not know, even now, about it).  But Keaton insisted that the choice SHOULD be made by the committee—that its members who joined were uniquely “deputized to follow the Holy Spirit, not the wishes of the people back home.”  One could see the desperate motivation of people who did NOT want to submit this hot issue to democratic process. 

I’m alarmed at Elizabeth Keaton’s present self-projecting, threatening comments about Anne, and I am disturbed all over again at the later self-justifications.  She crucially needs help, and above all she needs repentance; even therapy can not give her that.  Perhaps we should be even more concerned that the Episcopal Church has come to embody some of her inmost malady.

[297] Posted by Paula on 07-10-2007 at 05:34 AM • top

Greg,

I submitted it last night, before I cc’d it to this thread.  It might appear (or not) on the “Leaving on a Jet Plane,” thread.  We’ll see.

[298] Posted by J Eppinga on 07-10-2007 at 06:08 AM • top

Here’s another possibility: send Anne’s post along with Kaeton’s entry to Beckwith. Maybe he can defrock her for exegetical incompetence (she is after all a clergyperson). I note none of the commenters on the original post have drawn any of Kaeton’s conclusions, or “concerns”.

[299] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 07-10-2007 at 06:46 AM • top

Well Anne Kennedy+ 300 plus comments in thirty-two hours, you are loved and SF folks will go to bat for you!

I see Kaeton+ has nice photos of her and her daughter and playing up their relationship. I don’t doubt their sincere affection for each other, that’s God given between almost all moms and children. I doubt she sees that anti-motherhood messages of the authors she is referencing and quoting though. Growing up with a feminist mom, a sister and the nations first woman sports writer for my grandmother, I know a little about the contradicting messages of how children (me) hinder a woman’s path to success, no you are valued even if you’re being sacrificed for a career.

To her latest comment, Jesus gave dignity and respect to women like no other in His time, but He was no feminist as the ‘60s & ‘70s folk she is referencing describe it. I think the original post is from her heart on what she actually thinks, I hope and pray that she has revised it so much and toned the rhetoric way down that it’s not because her bishop may say something, but Kaeton+‘s heart was convicted to some of the contradictions in feminist theory to the value of motherhood and where the Lord actually places career (have you heard of ANY one whose last words were expressing regret for not spending more time at the office?). I hope she ponders what actually gives women value.

Hopefully she’ll learn NEVER to take on Anne Kennedy+ again!

[300] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 07-10-2007 at 07:05 AM • top

I’ve read every post in this thread, and with the total at 300 and growing, I’ve noticed something interesting. There’s not a single comment defending Kaeton, or excusing her, or even trying to explain her in sympathetic terms. Nor is there a single comment from any of the reappraisers who regularly comment here. Kaeton seems to have crossed a line so bright that even those who would otherwise be supporting her are afraid to “show their faces.” I know there are similarly deranged individuals who are supporting her at her own blog (I only know that from comments here; I don’t have the stomach to go anywhere near there), but they don’t dare show up here.

For what it’s worth.

[301] Posted by David Fischler on 07-10-2007 at 08:01 AM • top

I’ve been reading every post here, too, and I think a comment needs to be made to my friends here.

Keaton’s+ original post and original follow up were out of line, hurtful and below the norms of acceptable behavior for Christians - especially our clergy. However, I think the calls for her to “get help” are over blown and some of the language we (myself included) have used on this thread is no better than what we found offensive on her blog. At the very least, Keaton+ realized her comments did her no favors and see amended them. She had a bad day, attacked a friend and displayed some attitudes and beliefs we disagree with; let’s not go apoplectic over every mistake as we have certainly caused the same offense ourselves at times.

2 Corinthians 1:12 - “Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God’s grace.”

[302] Posted by texex on 07-10-2007 at 08:22 AM • top

texex,

Until this morning I would have agreed with you. Now with new information, I’m not so sure. Certainly some of our commenters have now shown their best sides (Sodbuster, you get a yellow flag for the ‘gyno-fascist’ comment - please don’t post remarks like that here again), but Elizabeth Kaeton crossed the line in a severe way, and has only made it worse by her subsequent statements.

I’ll be preparing a new post this morning to address those matters, at which point I’ll close comments on this thread and redirect everyone to the new one.

[303] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-10-2007 at 08:40 AM • top

No, sorry, I’m not going to adopt the “A pox on both your houses” evenhanded approach.  What’s been said here is NOT “no better than what we found offensive on her blog”.  What she said was MUCH worse.  She’s an adult, and she can handle remarks about “getting help” - not that she’ll pay the slightest bit of attention, anyway.  That’s nowhere near as bad as “I can send in the authorities to take away your children at any moment, so watch your step.”  Even sending complaints to her bishop doesn’t come near.  As I said, she’s an adult and a professional, and anyone can expect to have their work attitude scrutinized at any time.  It’s not the same as threatening violence to a family, and that’s what snitching to the state is.  Nor is this just “a bad day” - this is what Kaeton does, and has done before.  This is who she is - a bully and a belligerant.  This time it didn’t pay off.

[304] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 07-10-2007 at 08:45 AM • top

Greg,  I look forward to the new post.

Dr. Mabuse, getting upset at her comments is not the issue I’m raising - they are worth getting upset over and writing to her bishop and SC are appropriate. But what you write and how you write are also important.

[305] Posted by texex on 07-10-2007 at 08:56 AM • top

well congrats on finding something you can all be offended over. What should have ended with an apology and an end to the matter now serves the good purpose of letting conservatives feel that, once again, they are such victims. And it serves a good purpose, too. Once someone has decided that they are a victim they can feel free to say or do just about anything. Normally disgusting behavior is now justified through deciding that you are victims. Conservatives have nourished a strong sense of victimhood ever since you were forced by the courts to accept desegregation of the schools. Political conservative talking heads like Bill O’R and convicted druggie Rush L make their living off of beating the drum of “conservatives as victims.” It has worked so well in the political realm you might as well keep it up in the church. Wave that flag of victimhood. It justifies everything. You are so put upon by those mean liberals.

And nevermind the things that have been said here that have offended liberals. That doesn’t matter because they were, well, liberals. You can say anything about them. The ugly comments on SF about liberals are less disturbing because they were about liberals. But let one liberal say one bad thing about a conservative and now you have a purpose to march in the streets.

You lot can shovel out the garbage. Grow up and quit playing the innocent victim role when it comes back to you.

Perhaps you should post that crying baby picture at the top of this post.

[306] Posted by denniswine on 07-10-2007 at 09:10 AM • top

denniswine,

We’re angry and playing the victim because schools were desegregated?

Hoooooo-kayyyyyyy…....

[307] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-10-2007 at 09:19 AM • top

no, conservatives have nourished a sense of victimhood ever since that day. it is the defining nature of being a conservative today. ANd now you do it so well in the church, too. You poor put-upon conservatives. those mean ol’ liberals just don’t get it.

“Victimhood” is a powerful tool to build an identity and it has been put to good use by the conservatives ever since that date.

Prior to that time conservatves were grownups. It would be good for the country and the church for you to return to that. But why give up a sense of being put upon? It has built up your movement so well.

[308] Posted by denniswine on 07-10-2007 at 09:26 AM • top

Darn those desegregated schools!  Dennis caught us. 

We are so upset about our schools being desegregated that we tricked Rev. Kaeton into posting one of the most vile internet postings ever written by an Episcopalian Clergy member about another Episcopalian Clergy member.

Once we tricked Rev. Kaeton into revealing her true beliefs, we attack her.  All in response to schools being desegregated.

Help us, Dennis, with one of your evangelical-sounding prayers for our imperiled souls.

ROFLMAO.

DoW

[309] Posted by DietofWorms on 07-10-2007 at 09:29 AM • top

Dennis, what a wonderful post, it sure brings a measure of levity back into this dark situation. That bit about conservatives always playing the victim was a good one, but I was rolling on the floor with the desegregation comment, how outlandish!

[310] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 07-10-2007 at 09:30 AM • top

Very robust defense of Kaeton’s remarks.  And you left out fluoridation of the water supply as a conservative grievance.

[311] Posted by wildfire on 07-10-2007 at 09:30 AM • top

denniswhine has a typical liberal revisionista response: If the facts are indefensible, just attack those old mean conservative reasserting fundies. What a maroon.

the snarkster

[312] Posted by the snarkster on 07-10-2007 at 09:35 AM • top

Personally, my sense of victimhood goes back to the decision to take the dollar off the gold standard.  My righteous anger is traceable directly to that infamy.

[313] Posted by DaveG on 07-10-2007 at 09:39 AM • top

DaveG, at least we got some back when Volker established price stability as the primary goal of the Fed- let’s take our victories where we can.

[314] Posted by texex on 07-10-2007 at 09:41 AM • top

There was a wonderful biography of Goldwater out a couple of years ago. A fascinating history of the conservative movement. Being an ex conservative I thought it was instructive. It really lays out the history of the movement. Go find and read.

The conservative worldview truly is one of grievance and victimhood. It does date back to the 50s. You couldn’t care less about the fights of that time (none of us could) but you now repeat a pattern of behavior that started back in the 50s and early 60s.

The American left does the same looney tactic. It counts for politics in our day and age: be offended, be very offended, because being victims justifies the fight and the energy.

You know full well that blog fights are never pretty. You can shovel it out. Act like adults and play along. Either accept her apology or say something more over the top about her. But don’t play the poor victim card.

and don’t act surprised that I tied the behavior you are showing to the fights of the 50s. That is where it begins. Some of the worst behavior on the left is merely a continuation of behaviors learned way back in the fight over the Rosenbergs. It is like family systems theory: we keep up patterns of behavior for decades.

Drop the use of vicitmhood as a defining cause of the movement. Act like adults. Isn’t this supposed to be a no-freakout / no-whining zone?

[315] Posted by denniswine on 07-10-2007 at 09:43 AM • top

There is no such thing as an ex-conservative.  Conservatism is an inherited trait like handedness.

Rev. Kaeton’s apology was not an apology, by the way.

[316] Posted by DietofWorms on 07-10-2007 at 09:50 AM • top

I could comment at length about who is being victimized—liberals or conservatives—but it would be ‘way off topic, as are denniswine’s posts.  The only victim I see here is Anne Kennedy+.

[317] Posted by Sue Martinez on 07-10-2007 at 09:52 AM • top

Hehehehehe….

Okay everybody, that was a humorous detour through crazy lefty-wing fantasies of what drives the right. Let’s get back on topic, please.

[318] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-10-2007 at 09:59 AM • top

Greg,
  Where’s the update????
Please close this thread before denniswine traces conservative victomhood back to Socrates and the fall of the Thirty Tyrants! wink

[319] Posted by Rocks on 07-10-2007 at 10:03 AM • top

Taking the art of the non sequitur to new and exciting places, Our Lizzy responds to a measured and articulate request from one of her commenters:

trooper said…

  While I totally agree that the blogosphere does create a mandate for personal commentary, etc. I personally felt that your comments regarding “concern for this person’s health” fumbled accidentally into “watch out or we’ll have social services take your kids.” If that was not your intention, please say so. I found the whole thing to be threatening. I can’t be the only one who read it that way

  Tue Jul 10, 12:43:00 AM
Elizabeth Kaeton said…

  It was not my intention. Of course, it was not my intention.

  I grow so weary of being attacked for raising the issue of the goodness and rightness of feminism.

  Jesus was a feminist.

  Get over it.

  Tue Jul 10, 12:52:00 AM

Right. It wasn’t the fact that, over the course of several paragraphs and with a disturbing amount of detail and forethought, she accused someone of being mentally unstable and harboring sub-conscious murderous intentions towards her children. And it wasn’t the direct threat to call in a squadron of social workers and “helping professionals” on that same person.

She’s being “attacked” for defending feminism.

And, apropos of nothing, asserts that Jesus was a feminist.

Are these the responses of a stable person who should have an entire congregation in her spiritual care? I’m just asking.

[320] Posted by Dave on 07-10-2007 at 10:09 AM • top

yes, yes, by all means, get back to complaining about the awful mean terrible behavior of one liberal female priest and using this to shore up a sense of identity.

My understanding of modern conservativism is hardly based on liberal fantasy. I know conservativism. I was a state chair of Young Conservatives back in the 80s, active in young repubs and college repubs, ran as an uber-conservative candidate in 92 with money from Newt’s GOPAC.  I have the credentials to be a real ex-conservative. and to base my thoughts on modern conservativism from intimate personal knowledge.

Here is my point and I’ll post no more here today: Quit whining. Either accept EK’s apology or dish out something worse from your end. But act like adults.

No more whining about that mean old EK.

Because as it now stands you’ve lost the right to use the “crying baby image” for other bloggers whining, and you know it.

[321] Posted by denniswine on 07-10-2007 at 10:12 AM • top

Conservatives have nourished a strong sense of victimhood ever since you were forced by the courts to accept desegregation of the schools.

Denniswine—There you go again, using the usual liberal tactic of accusing others of the very same thing you do. Only in this case it won’t take because we’re on to you and we know you’re just spewing your typically unsupported psychobabble which, when scrutinized, has no meaning.

There is a big difference between playing the victim, which is a typical liberal game, and actually being one which is what has happened to +Anne Kennedy. There was no cause for Kaeton to attack and threaten +Anne. But she did so as a way to attack +Matt who has written numerous excellent and well thought-out pieces which refute the dim-witted inclusive theology of the revisionists.

Kaeton knows she can’t attack +Matt directly so she goes after +Anne as a way to hurt him.

Your accusatioon of whinning pseudo-victims won’t stick here because there was a real, unjustified, vitriolic attack coupled with threats. Further, I’ve heard no whining from +Anne—only from you.

I agree with the Snarkster…what a Maroon!!!!

God bless you +Anne and +Matt. While this was unfortunate, it once again helps highlight why the orthodox are leaving TEC in droves along with the false theology of those in leadership roles in the TEC.
I know the wounds caused by this savage attack are painful but they truly are superficial. Though I don’t expect you to, I would truly hope you would take legal action against her. Not only would you get the personal satisfaction of taking a paddle to her, it also would serve to publicize and highlight the mean-spiritedness of the liberal leadership in TEC.

God be with you both as you work your way through this and thank you for your service as true role models for the orthodox.

[322] Posted by Forgiven on 07-10-2007 at 10:15 AM • top

Does Dennis’ hit and run comment qualify him as a troll?

[323] Posted by TonyinCNY on 07-10-2007 at 10:16 AM • top

I know conservativism. I was a state chair of Young Conservatives back in the 80s, active in young repubs and college repubs,

REALLY - I’m a reformed liberal—I was going to Rock Against Reagan shows down at the Lincoln Memorial during that time, so I know about liberal whining, you’ve seemed to pick it up fairly well, especially that non sequitur part. Good show, you learn fast.

[324] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 07-10-2007 at 10:19 AM • top

denniswine - at least you can post here and no your post will be seen.  On “some” blogs <Rev. Kaeton’s> you can’t be at all certain you’ll get your say.  So, inspite of TEC mantra of inclusion….I’d say we here at SF are more inclusive by far.

[325] Posted by wdgreen340 on 07-10-2007 at 10:24 AM • top

texex,

You said that Kaeton+

had a bad day, attacked a friend and displayed some attitudes and beliefs we disagree with.

I am unfamiliar with both women, which you may not be, but your assessment of the situation seems to go beyond the knowledge of any person posting to this thread. Consequently, in order for me to evaluate the objectivity of your other comments, I have a few questions.

(a) What evidence that is publicly known have you to offer in support of the contention that Kaeton+ “had a bad day?” Is it her comment that she was

surprised at the slow rise of disappointment I could feel welling up in my stomach(?)

I would suggest that surprise at such a visceral reaction is, usually, something beyond “having a bad day.”

(b) I am not aware that Kaeton+ considers herself a friend of Anne+. Is this (1) true and (2) more generally known? If true, the tenor of the original blog by Kaeton+ is not the sort of thing I would expect from a friend unless I had demonstrated very substantial effrontery, rudeness or dishonesty toward that friend.

(c) It is not my impression that many posters on this thread have taken issue primarily with the “attitudes” or “beliefs” of Kaeton+, but rather that it was her words and the profoundly vitriolic tone of her statements about Anne+ to which most, in my reading, have addressed their astonishment and criticism.

Kaeton+, by her publicly posted comments, has demonstrated an unbelievable degree of arrogance, hypocrisy and hostility towards Anne+, even if the latter were not personally known to her. This is even more egregious in view of the fact that Kaeton+ is an Episcopal cleric.

In light of my observations above, I find your assertions unconvincing, at best. Please feel free to correct my perceptions if I have overlooked something.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[326] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 07-10-2007 at 10:25 AM • top

wdgreen340….  Exactly!  Well said.

[327] Posted by Liz Forman on 07-10-2007 at 10:32 AM • top

Desegregation?  Fluoride?  Personally I’m still nursing a grudge against Andrew Jackson.  And things have been going down hill since the days of Pericles.  Cimon was the last decent leader we had, really.  Back when a drachma was worth a drachma.

But seriously, let us use the English language properly.  When an innocent woman is attacked without provocation she can accurately be described as a victim.  The attacker cannot be accurately so described.  Those who rally to her defense are not victims, they are defenders.  God bless them.

[328] Posted by DarkHelmet on 07-10-2007 at 10:37 AM • top

denis: Conservatives have nourished a strong sense of victimhood ever since you were forced by the courts to accept desegregation of the schools.

And yet look at all the liberals fighting for segregated marriages.  Insisting that when it comes to husbands/wives and mothers/fathers, separate actually IS equal.

Please.

[329] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 07-10-2007 at 10:37 AM • top

denniswine,

Kaeton’s ‘apology’ is not an apology, plain and simple. An apology is not “I’m sorry that what I wrote hurt you, but I was completely justified in writing it because blah blah blah…”

[330] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-10-2007 at 10:38 AM • top

Martial Artist,

I don’t think the issue was w/ every post here. SodBuster was an obvious example, but some (just a few) of the other posts also felt a bit extreme.

a) I do not know Keaton+ , I just know from my own experiences I can be on top of my game and state my orthodox Christian views with love and grace or I can let human nature take over and come across as a heartless, arrogant, hypocritical arse. I in know way agree with what she posted and I’m not trying to defend it - I just don’t see the need to focus on style when the substance is what is really toxic. Believe me, I felt the almost overwhelming desire to unload on Keaton+ as well, as I’m sure Paul often did when writing his epistles. The problem is eventually the only message that gets across is “I’m mad.”

b) My previous post is confusing on this topic - I am not aware if Keaton+ and Anne+ are friends. It should have read “she attacked our friend.” Sorry for the confusion.

c) I have no issue with confronting attitudes and beliefs that I frankly find do more harm than good for women. But some of the posts on this thread bordered on - no were - ad hominem attacks. Again, we can argue substance w/ our Worthy Opponents with out adopting their style.

You and I completely agree that a priest should be more mature than Keaton+ was, but arrogance, hypocrisy and hostility are not mental illnesses. Raising awareness of over-the-top and overly dramatic language is more effective when you don’t engage in the same behavior.

[331] Posted by texex on 07-10-2007 at 10:45 AM • top

Liz - thanks.  And I can’t believe I used “no” for “know”.  Thats what happens when you try to post in between phone calls and meetings at work.

[332] Posted by wdgreen340 on 07-10-2007 at 10:45 AM • top

I think we are missing something that may be more important for Elizabeth Kaeton and her family. It seems to me that Elizabeth Kaeton merely used Anne Kennedy as a proxy to vent the anger she had toward her daughter after talking to her granddaughter. It looks as if Anne Kennedy became a “safe” proxy for Kaeton ‘s anger toward her daughter. I think it would be helpful that everyone take a step back from this and see that Elizabeth may need help with this anger and begin to pray that her and her daughter begin to deal with whatever issue they are avoiding and allow Jesus to come in and begin a healing.

[333] Posted by ExEpiscop on 07-10-2007 at 11:19 AM • top

Elizabeth Kaeton added this comment about Greg to her blog yesterday afternoon:

...some of his minions have already contacted my bishop, the chancellor and my fellow members of the standing committee.
I might actually be concerned if he had a shred of credibility locally or nationally in the Church - or, anywhere outside of the confines of his own blogosphere.
He’s all hot and smelly from what he considers a victory about the priest from Seattle. It’s the nature of sharks to move into a feeding frenzy once they smell blood on the water or fear in the air.
It is a shame. Ah, see how these Christians love one another!

Oh, what a motley bunch of minions we are! grin

[334] Posted by Piedmont on 07-10-2007 at 11:26 AM • top

Sharks aren’t bottom feeders.

But then, I’m not an oceanologist.

[335] Posted by James Manley on 07-10-2007 at 11:28 AM • top

Cool - I’m a minion.  I’m still stoked to be a bottom feeder, and then to make it to minion level.  Its like Christmas in July!

[336] Posted by wdgreen340 on 07-10-2007 at 11:29 AM • top

From denniswhine’s post above:

Either accept her apology or say something more over the top about her.

It is not up to any of us to accept an apology from Liz. The only person that is due an apology is Anne+. For the record, an apology is not just saying “I’m sorry I got caught”. All she would have to do is contact Anne+ privately and graciously and sincerely apologize for her vile and disgusting rantings. I can assure you that if Anne+ had said publicly that Liz had apologized and she had accepted said apology, this thread would probably about 200 posts shorter.

Except for to the extent that her rant is indicative of the way a lot of rad-fem LBGT activists feel about reasserters, this is not about us vs them.I would have considered her remarks to be just as vile and disgusting if one of us had made them about Liz. And believe me, the revisionistas would have been clamoring for a Congressional investigation if we had made them.

Get real. The fact that we are protective of one our own who suffered a vicious and unprovoked attack is not whining. If you believe that, you really are a “maroon”.

the snarkster

[337] Posted by the snarkster on 07-10-2007 at 11:38 AM • top

This may get buried, but it may well be worth stating what’s an appropriate apology, as there seem to be a few posters who don’t know how to apologize:

I’m sorry about what I did (or said or wrote). I ask your forgiveness. I will endeavour to do better in the future.

Short, sweet and to the point.

It is entirely appropriate to add an explanation to clarify what it is you are apologizing about. It really isn’t relevant or appropriate to explain your motives were.

Part of being an adult is owning your mistakes and trying to make amends for them. I know some 15 year old adults and also, alas, some 60 year old children.

[338] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 07-10-2007 at 11:39 AM • top

This is getting rich:

breeders = bottom feeders + minions

or is it

bottom feeders + breeders = minions

or is it

breeders + minions = bottom feeders

That catfish patch is going to have company I think.  T-shirts might also be the hot clothing item for the fall HoB meeting in NO.

Maybe a nice slogan to help sort out where we stand:

Bottom feeders breeding minions who stand firm in the faith.

[339] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 07-10-2007 at 11:40 AM • top

As I understand it, a minion is above a vassal, but below a henchman.

[340] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 07-10-2007 at 11:47 AM • top

I’ve always liked being a servant of Christ, but then again I’m rather old fashioned.

In the hierarchy of menials, where do mere servants rank?

[341] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 07-10-2007 at 11:51 AM • top

Denniswine, If I remember correctlly Martin Luther King was a conservative Christian. He quoted Scripture with conviction. That was his strength.

[342] Posted by Betty See on 07-10-2007 at 11:54 AM • top

denniswine, do not assume that conservative Christians, as you call us, are political conservatives.  I know a number of the people here are NOT!  That’s just a silly correlation.  Furthermore, we are really just ordinary Christians who have not changed to favor the current radical turn in the American church, so don’t trace my religious attitudes to school desegregation, of all things.  I got my attitudes from the Creeds, the Prayer Book, the Church (until recently), and the Bible.

[343] Posted by Paula on 07-10-2007 at 11:54 AM • top

What should have ended with an apology
Yes, it should have. Why wasn’t there an apology for something so mean-spirited and ugly?

the good purpose of letting conservatives feel that, once again, they are such victims
Nice projection. grin Also nice stereotyping. Did you think only conservatives were offended? I’m one of the ones who welcomed integration.

[344] Posted by oscewicee on 07-10-2007 at 12:00 PM • top

...and if a henchman works REALLY hard, he can be a side-kick.

[345] Posted by GillianC on 07-10-2007 at 12:02 PM • top

...and after sidekick, you know there’s only one level left:  SECOND BANANA!

[346] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 07-10-2007 at 12:04 PM • top

Mousestalker,

You are right about not giving motivations for your behavior when you apologize because it only attempts to justify that for which you want to apologize. 

An essential element of an apology must be recognition of why what you did was wrong and that you will endeavor not to do it again.  The purpose for which is to restore fellowship, of course. 

If we can’t agree that what was done was wrong then the apology rings of patronization.  If someone is caught stealing and then apologizes for the stealing but doesn’t acknowledge that stealing is wrong, what would you expect him to do?  I would expect him to steal again because he lacks repentance. 

It’s interesting to me that of the four Gospels, Luke is the only one that adds, “if he repents” to the “how many times should I forgive” passage.

Just food for thought.

[347] Posted by Stephen on 07-10-2007 at 12:04 PM • top

“The only victim I see here is Anne Kennedy+”—-Sue Martinez

Agreed. Yesterday we were united in our astonishment and dismay at Elizabeth Kaeton’s attack and nonapologies (disdainful, threatening nonapologies, no less). Anne received an outpouring of support. Kaeton received the criticism she had so well earned. Yet most orthodox commenters, in responding to Kaeton, did not ape Kaeton’s own nastiness; they gave the lie to Kaeton’s sneers about Stand Firm.

How different the dominant note has become this morning.

[348] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-10-2007 at 12:04 PM • top

I suggest we start an Amazon.com wishlist for EK.  My contributions would be :
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition (Text Revision) by American Psychiatric Association

People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck

The Vatican’s Exorcists: Driving Out the Devil in the 21st Century by Tracy Wilkinson
 
The Death Of Right and Wrong : Exposing The Lefts’ Assault On Our Culture and Values by Tammy Bruce

The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds by Tammy Bruce

I Should Have Seen It Coming When The Rabbit Died.  By Teresa Bloomingdale.

[349] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 07-10-2007 at 12:16 PM • top

Dear Anne:

I am actually on vacation as I type this - and I will admit to being astounded by what I just read.
that
However, there are a couple of things to bear in mind:

1.  If you were not doing a work of God, Satan would not bother to attack you.  So, even if it may not feel like it, you must being doing something of worth.  This is a ‘backwards compliment’ but it’s a worthwhile thought to bear in mind. 

2.  You really cannot take much of what this woman says seriously.  If she understood the worth of children and what a gift they were, then she could not write what she did.

  As a mother, it makes me feel infinitely sorry for her.  What a blessing she has missed in not realizing ALL children are the gift of God - that should just feel us full of pity for her.  She is her own worst enemy and nothing written could ever approximate that living fate.

Re:  Remaining Episcopal and ‘missing a blessing of Christ’

I read this article first this morning then this one.  If there was a living proof of WHY we should not be unequally yoked with evil, this is the proof.  Call it what you will, but this is just darkness from the pit of Hell.  So, yes, we should be ‘in the world and not of it’.  However, we ARE NOT to go and try to worship with it.  When I read this I thought, “If this is the ‘blessing’ of which the author cries up, then I can be spared that one.”  I am to be light in the darkness, yes, to spread Christ’s love, but that does not mean I try to combine that light with the blackhole of evil and hope someone can see Jesus through it.”

Should we pray for Ms. Keaton and hope she can allow the love of Christ permeate all of her heart?  Especially when it comes to children?  Yes.  Should this mean that we commit a sin of ‘omission’ by worshiping with her and supporting her ministry via TEC - no, that does not promote the Gospel. 

How sad to be so eaten up with anger and bitterness.  Just makes me feel sorry for her.

[350] Posted by Eclipse on 07-10-2007 at 12:37 PM • top

He’s all hot and smelly from what he considers a victory about the priest from Seattle.

OH NO - Greg - watch your back… she may have the hygiene police out after you!  Do these personal violations know no end???

[351] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 07-10-2007 at 12:39 PM • top

I read most of the posts yesterday and nearly all of the ones that have been added since yesterday evening. I did not want to respond at the time because I did not know what to say. However, the Kennedy family is certainly in my prayers, as is Rev. Kaeton. I cannot imagine what is going on with her that would cause her to write with such hatred, but there must be something. Very sad indeed.

As well, my own views on feminism are vastly different than Rev. Kaeton’s (not to mention God and scripture) and I will not go into them here. I will say that I have several friends who are very much supporters of the feminist movement (if there still is such a thing), but not a single one would have ever written something like that regarding another person, woman nor not, in “defense” of feminism. I hope Rev. Kaeton is prayerfully considering a more appropriate apology. God will give her the right words to use if she just listens.

Lizzie [that’s Lizabeth, not Elizabeth smile ]

[352] Posted by lizzie on 07-10-2007 at 12:48 PM • top

“He’s all hot and smelly”—- Elizabeth Kaeton

I’ve never heard “hot and smelly” used as a synonym for “worked up” or “hot and bothered.”

Might Kaeton’s choice of these words reflect a more general view of men?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Speaking of noisome males, here’s the REVISIONIST DICTIONARY entry for the younger version, also known to get hot and smelly:

BOY: Small, disruptive, potentially patriarchal human in need of domestication.

[353] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-10-2007 at 12:59 PM • top

Irenaeus,

I haven’t forgotten about your revisionist dictionary - it will get a place of prominence soon. In the meantime, I’m going to close this thread - I’d rather we didn’t speculate any further on Ms. Kaeton’s motivation for her choice of adjectives, especially as it concerns me and my bodily fluids.  shut eye

Besides, there will be more to talk about in the next post on this matter…

[354] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-10-2007 at 01:22 PM • top

Comments are closed.

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.