Back from the exuberance of the Chesterton Conference, I’m banking up for our mission trip to El Salvador. We leave early on Thursday morning.
To tell you the truth, I haven’t got much to say about the homosexual Anglican priests having a big fancy ‘wedding’ in London. In many ways I suppose it’s a positive step. At least they’re being honest and open. It was all going on anyway with ‘private ceremonies’ and ‘discreet blessing services’. Now they’re being just about as aggressive, arrogant and ‘inyerface’ now as they can possibly be, and everybody should realize that they should never have started appeasing these people in the first place. Basic rule from the Indiana Jones school of moral theology: “Don’t appease Nazis.”
Jeffrey Steel (an American Anglican priest who ministers in England) has thoughts about it here. Jeffrey has a good blog that’s worth checking if you’re interested in how orthodox Anglicans are coping.
Now Anglicans who actually wish to follow the historic Christian faith can start making their exit plans. I wish more would act on their words, “Oh, we’re very Catholic you know…” and actually become Catholic, but alas, most of the Anglicans I know still have big problems with Peter the Rock. Sadly, he’s not the stepping stone for them, but a stumbling block.
Pray for orthodox Anglicans. They’re sheep without a shepherd right now, and I feel sorry for them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thanks for the kind plug to my blog. And yes, please pray for us as there are BIG decisions to be made by many of us [like 850 plus priests]!
Dwight,Please name the bishops.James
James,Why do you try to insist he name them? It could have legal implications and anyway, it’s not that important, is it? Isn’t it easy enough to determine which diocese once contained Fr. L’s Anglican parish? Obviously he was only interested in his home diocese in the UK or the diocese of his origin from the US. It’s not rocket science. From this you ought to be able to reconstruct which bishop is likely to have been the culprit; but you won’t have the certainty that might lead to a libel charge.
Alas, even such detective work will come to nothing. We were Catholics in England in three different dioceses, during the reign of five different bishops, and had dealings with two other dioceses and four other bishops.
Dwight,So………?James
He’s oddly pushy, isn’t he?
If an Evangelical made the charges Dwight has, Catholics would demand a retraction or apology or for the charges to be substantiated. And I would agree.Go on, Dwight…name the bishops. James
James,I don’t think posturing as an interrogator of Fr. L is particularly productive, regardless of your past experiences with pointing out the flaws of individual bishops or priests.Fr. L,That being said, if you are to take your responsibilities towards defending the faith seriously perhaps James has a point. ‘Outing’ them on a blog seems immature or at least inappropriate to me. But a well written letter to the CDF might be your responsibility, not just a good idea. Sprititual forgiveness is important, but accountability within forgiveness is necessary and a duty.
Marcus Aurelius,1. I don’t have “past experiences” as you describe. In fact, I am regularly trusted as a journalist by a number of Roman Catholic priests, bishops and ministries, who seek my confidential advice on stories and events which the secular papers would love but which I have no intention of writing as it would only be destructive to the Body of Christ.2. With respect, I find it difficult to correspond with someone who calls themself Marcus Aurelius. Can’t you just call yourself Hank or Mac or something?But….we are off topic here. Dwight – your final call – will you name the bishops?God blessJamesus Journalisaemus
I don’t have “past experiences” as you describeJames, You said: If an Evangelical made the charges Dwight has, Catholics would demand a retraction or apology or for the charges to be substantiated. And I would agree.So if you never had such experiences then this statement seems to lack credibility.With respect, I find it difficult to correspond with someone who calls themself Marcus Aurelius. Can’t you just call yourself Hank or Mac or something?No. With dispassionate stoic lack of concern: I am not commenting on Fr. L’s blog in order to correspond with you nor will I concern myself with your perceived difficulties in correspondence anymore than you would if I asked you to call yourself by some other name. I am regularly trusted as a journalist by a number of Roman Catholic priests, bishops and ministries, who seek my confidential advice on stories and events which the secular papers would love but which I have no intention of writing as it would only be destructive to the Body of Christ.That sounds impressive. Given that experience you ought to have developed maturity. And, you ought to thus know better than to hound someone on their blog for a public disclosure that they are obviously not comfortable making. Speaking of names, If you had respect for the priests and bishops aforementioned, one would think you would use the honorifics of bishops and priests and at least refer to Fr. L as ‘Rev Dwight’; as would airports and various other totally secular institutions.
Makeus AuroraBorealis,Blog com boxes are eternal penances, like a perpetual mortgage. Just when you think you’ve made the last payment or answered all of someone’s points, they write some other nonsense that they somehow derive from something you never said, and so it goes on!So, I’ll pull out now, brother, and let you respond so you have the satisfaction of the last word.I do enjoy the confidence of many Catholics in the media. Only this week a well known Catholic priest blogger (in the UK) made remarks on his blog which I could lift as they are in the public domain and use as a story that might get him into trouble, but after speaking with him, I have respected his plea not to – and advised him to be careful what he writes in future.Also this week, a bishop made a snap remark during a conversation with me about a Catholic group he was upset with. I would make that bishop look very silly if I used his comment as I am entitled to do as he was not speaking off the record, but I respect him speaking in a moment of anger and have left it out of the story I wrote.As for titles, why should clergy of all denominations, be the only people who deserve to be known by their titles? Do you call your plumber Mr Smith or the garbage man, Mr Jones? If not, why not? We are all equal in the sight of God, even Dwight. I have stated many times, I prefer calling people by their Christian names or first names if they are not Christians.I wonder why you write under the name you do? Ashamed to put your real identity to your comments? Lacking confidence in your God-given Christian name with all the blessings that real name bestows?Are you a perpetual teenager with posters of your Roman heroes plastered over the bedroom walls?But in all of this mist, like the foggy pic of the Oxford Oratory (much more style than substance) that Dwight uses in another part of his blog, the real point has been lost and conveniently so for Dwight:Will he name the bishops?I am not hounding him, simply asking him to justify a very serious allegation.God bless you, Mick Auroifollys.YoursMr Hastings.