Episcopal Presiding Bishop Kate (Kitty) Jefferts-Schori has come out swinging against those who are against the trend of the Episcopal Church becoming a gay-lesbi-trans religious sect. You can read the whole story here.
In response to the Diocese of San Joaquin’s withdrawal from the Protestant denomination, Kitty has inhibited the Diocesan bishop from all priestly and episcopal functions. He’s taking no notice. Neither is the Bishop of Pittsburgh. Funny how those who blame the Catholic Church for being autocratic and dictatorial are happy to throw plenty of punches when they need to.
There are a couple of other rather strange things about this whole phenomenon. Has anyone noticed that Bishop Kitty is seeking to inhibit the Bishops in question from performing their roles in her church, but they have already decided to leave her church? It’s like a disappointed customer walking out of a restaurant and the owner following him out into the street saying, “That does it! I’m kicking you out of my restaurant.”
The other upside down thing about the Episcopalian hierarchy ‘disciplining’ the conservative dissidents is that it reveals the true depth of difference between the present Episcopal/Anglican leadership and the Catholic faith. In the Catholic faith we discipline clergy who espouse and defend homosexuality. In the Episcopal Church they discipline those who do not espouse and defend homosexuality.
Lest I get lots of comments saying, “Come on Father, you know there are lots of homosexual Catholic priests…” While this may be so, and it may be right that some of our seminaries are pink, the fact remains that Catholics are dismayed by such things. We’re not making it church policy and kicking out all those who will not accept as bishop a man named Vicky who divorced his wife to marry his boyfriend.
Oh my gosh!! I can’t wait to see what hornet’s nest you’ve stirred up now! Maybe it will keep everyone from slamming my post today. Good luck!P.S. I’d vote for you:)
…and further more all the Episcopalians are really fighting about is money and property. As Tony Soprano says, “follow the money trail.”
It’s curious that, in the previous instances of whole congregations leaving the Episcopal “big umbrella”, the General Assembly didn’t object to them taking the buildings and property with them.
A Church founded on adultery and divorce is now breaking apart – should we be suprised?
Does she really go by “Kitty” ? I’ve never seen her called that before. If she does, fine. But if not, it seems like a petty insult that undermines an otherwise well reasoned post.I don’t mean to criticize, because I do enjoy reading your blog. I just sometimes get tired of all the snarkiness I see online sometimes. (Not here, but other sites.) She does plenty of dumb things and there are many, many legitimate things to criticize without mocking her name.
I have to agree with mhl. +KJS may be many things, and few of them good, but “Kitty” is beneath dignity. Her legacy will be the ruined church she now forging. There’s no need to pile on.And yes, my RCIA classes are going well, thank you very much. It’s good to be rafting ‘cross the Tiber.
We simply are not in good position to gloat over such things.Here is Newsweek last week about 12 of our Jesuit missionaries and 3 of their lay volunteers molesting 110 Eskimo Children from 1959 to 1986 and now the Jesuits will pay the largest amount ever by a religious order…50 million.http://www.newsweek.com/id/93626 Frankly I find forced fellatio and sodomy on children (read the link about the bleeding) worse than these bizarre adults acting without coercion but mortally sinfully indeed. Who will be further down in hell other things being equal…the adult to adult sodomite or the priest who said the Mass everyday and received the Eucharist and then forced fellatio on children? Is that a tough call for anyone?
It’s like comparing apples I wouldn’t eat to oranges I wouldn’t stay in the same room with. True we have no room to gloat I’ll agree but the proposition you are making ignores the fact that the church does not condone this behaviour. for all involved may God have mercy on their souls because the public will be fitting them for a set of millstone necklaces. Now regarding the whole anglican affair there is a difference. Their situation is not about whether a particular event has occured or in the public eye which is more terrible, it’s about church leadership taking something defined as sinful and then knowingly taking someone who embodies that sin and making that person a leader in your church so that you can change what the “definition” of what that sin is (or at least it’s perception). if you want an example take the cynic’s opinion on politics, the cynic will tell you that every politician is a crook and a liar, but nobody wants a widely known crook or a liar to be president, especially when that politician runs on that platform of legalising crooks or liars.
thursday – “It’s like comparing apples I wouldn’t eat to oranges I wouldn’t stay in the same room with.good one!
I hope she goes by Kitty – LOL! It wasn’t so snarky Father – good post – seasoned with humor.
Let’s make a distinction. To say one is a homosexual is not to say that person is also gay. If a person is an SSA priest and living IAW Church teaching, that’s great. If one identifies as gay, that’s a problem.
Ok, Father – You’ve been tagged. Drop by and pick up your instructions.http://adriennescatholiccorner.blogspot.com/
Thanks Jeron,It is difficult at times, trying to explain what you wrote to others. Especially when they don’t want to undestand.Dean Steinlage
Let’s make another distinction. To say that someone is gay or lesbian is not the same thing as saying that person has done evil things to other people — which is the case when we’re talking about priests who have molested children, and bishops and Cardinals who have covered up for them. (If pretending that the problem did not exist, and then throwing legal obstacles in the way of victims in their families is not a form of “sanctioning” the wrongful acts, I don’t know what is.) People who are gay and lesbian and in committed, loving, caring relationships are not, repeat are not, in a situation that is morally equivalent to what the Catholic church (and yes, other denominations, too) permitted for far, far too long among some of its clergy members.
With respect, Father, I’m with mhl and John about seeming to take cheap shots at KJS. As for a bishop named Vicki, Greg Griffith of Stand Firm has this to say:I know Bishop Robinson’s real name is indeed “Vicki Imogene,” but I never refer to him by that in the context of opposing his episcopacy or his theology, because it’s obviously intended as a slam against him personally. It’s a juvenile, playground taunt that doesn’t belong here. Go to Google and learn why he’s named that, and my guess is that you’ll understand why it’s inappropriate in the extreme to use it.And according to this profile, Robinson and his wife divorced before he met his current boyfriend.Anyway, your main point is right on the money: the Catholic Church and Anglican Church both have clergy who behave scandalously; but of the two institutions, only the latter has let this fact distort its teaching.
In the late 1970’s, in San Francisco, at a meeting of lay people organized by the Episcopal diocese there to discuss Episcopalian’s “sexual ways of being” in relation to the faith, I had the temerity to mention one way of being that was utterly unmentionable (and one which has since become a deep part of my life), which is celibacy. The reception I got was as if I had emitted gas. Had I been quicker on the uptake then on the implications of that and the Episcopal church’s already extant attempts to ordain women priests and bishops, it would have been a good thing. The wise priest of my Anglo-Catholic parish in those days “crossed the Tiber” decades ago. Once again, Fr. Dwight, you have hit the nail on the head about the sad plight of the Anglican communion and particularly the ECUSA.