Here's the email you heard about on NPR and that is all over the news today. Just as they said, it's viral now. It came to me today from a friend in Alaska.
---------------------------------
A note to all by Anne Kilkenny
Dear friends,
So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .
Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common: their gender and their good looks. :)
You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .
Thanks,Anne
ABOUT SARAH PALIN
I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992.
Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.
She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".
It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved here; Trig is her baby.
She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans. Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.
She's smart. Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000(at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents. During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation(1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or anew library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved!
The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.
While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.
These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.
As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.
In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.
She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.
While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.
Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State's top cop (see below).
As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.
She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.
Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.
When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club" when she dramatically quit, exposing this man's ethics violations (for which he was fined).
As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.
As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork".
She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.
Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.
As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.
Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State's lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as threatened species.
McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she. However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.
CLAIM VS FACT.
"Hockey mom": true for a few years.
"PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary
school, not since.
"NRA supporter": absolutely true.
social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
"Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation.
"Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
political maverick: not at all.
gutsy: absolutely!
open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
has a developed philosophy of public policy: no.
"a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
pro-infrastructure: No.
Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents.
pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla's history.
pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.
WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny +Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.
Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.
Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that's life.
Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.
Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.
CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases?
Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin's selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90's.
Anne Kilkenny
August 31, 2008
Friday, September 05, 2008
John McCain vs. John McCain [Thanks, Susan]
And then there is this one. Again, Susan Russell pointed me to this great site, the real John McCain. It has MANY wonderful videos, but she rightly has picked this one as the best. This is what the news media should be doing, but is not.
The Gender Card
I love Jon Stewart of The Daily Show. This is one of his best. Susan Russell also has this and other great commentary about Sarah Palin on her blog.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Thanks, but no thanks
UPDATED 9/04/08: Both Mark Harris and Episcopal Cafe have comments on Bishop Iker's pastoral request.
A PASTORAL REQUEST FROM THE BISHOP
This message is specifically directed to every priest in charge of a congregation in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. However, I am sending it to all clergy, vestry members, and convention delegates on our mailing list so that everyone will know what I am proposing.
As the date approaches for our momentous Diocesan Convention vote in November, many parish clergy have attempted to make certain that their parishioners understand the issues surrounding the proposal that we separate from the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. In several places parish forums have been held, where outside speakers have been brought in to present the opposing sides on the question of realignment. Some of you have preached sermons on this subject, written articles for your parish newsletter, and even in a couple of places brought in General Convention authorities to speak your people.
In addition, several different groups have been formed in the Diocese, including Remain Episcopal, Via Media, and Remain Faithful, which have attempted to educate, organize, and motivate the laity to take sides on the question: “Should we remain with TEC or with the Diocese?” Legal counsel has been engaged, lawsuits are being anticipated, various steering committees have been formed, and outside assistance from the “815” church headquarters in New York is being sought.
An important factor that has often been forgotten in all of the controversy is the need for prayerful discernment that seeks, above all else, to know what God’s will is for us at this particular time in our life together as a diocesan family.
As your bishop and chief pastor, I am inviting and urging that every congregation in this Diocese enter into an intentional 40 day period of prayerful discernment to be concluded the week prior to our Convention on November 14 and 15. This means that our start-up day would have to be either September 28 or 29. Furthermore, I am proposing that we all use the same materials and process that will lead us in this venture. All the information that you will need may be found at this website: http://www.40daysofdiscernment.org/ Please go to that site today or tomorrow and get everything you need in order to begin.
Fr. David Klein has already completed this program at St. John’s Church in Fort Worth, and I am certain that he is willing to commend it to you and to answer any questions you may have about it in advance.
I will not force any of you to comply with this request. At this very tense and troubled time in the life of our Church, I am simply asking each of you to respect and be guided by my pastoral direction and leadership as your bishop by leading your congregation(s) in this discernment program. Ultimately, no one from outside can tell you and your people what you should decide is the best way forward for your congregation. This 40-day program is to help each local congregation, as a body of Christian believers, to enter into a prayerful and reasoned process to help discern a way forward through the crisis that is confronting us.
Please let me know how I can be of assistance as we move forward together as the Holy Spirit leads us.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
September 3, 2008
++++
This message is available on the diocesan Web site.
-----------------------
I am very glad Bishop Iker isn't going to "force" us all to participate in this, given that he has no power to force anyone except clergy to do so.
But as usual, he makes no effort to be even-handed. Just look at how he phrases the question: “Should we remain with TEC or with the Diocese?”
Many of us plan to do both, bishop, since you can't "take' the diocese anywhere.
The question should be "Should we remain with the Episcopal Church, or leave it for some other entity?" The diocese stays right here, and will reorganize itself, elect a new bishop, and get on with God's work in this part of Texas.
The materials the bishop mentions have been produced and copyrighted by The Falls Church and Truro Church Virginia, both of which have left the Episcopal Church to join CANA, the Convocation of Anglicans in America. They claim Martyn Minns, former rector of Truro Church, as their bishop, he having been consecrated by Peter Akinola, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
I guess I should be glad that at last, Bishop Iker is encouraging discussion of the issues here. But you know, somehow, I just can't bring myself to trust that anything produced by this group wasn't created to produce the outcome they want -- acquiescence to Bishop Iker's desire to leave the Episcopal Church.
Because that is the intent. To leave the Episcopal Church. That's what "separating from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church" means.
And, how insulting is this? "An important factor that has often been forgotten in all of the controversy is the need for prayerful discernment that seeks, above all else, to know what God’s will is for us at this particular time in our life together as a diocesan family."
I've got news for you, Bishop Iker. A whole lot of us have been prayerfully trying to discern what God's will is in this situation for several years now. In fact, far from forgetting prayer, it has been all that has kept some of us going at times in the face of the bullying behavior of some of the clergy here and the massive amounts of disinformation about the Episcopal Church disseminated by you and your supporters.
I cannot speak for Remain Faithful, but I can for Fort Worth Via Media, North Texans Remain Episcopal, both in Wichita Falls and Granbury, and for the Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians. Prayerful discernment of God's will for us is the entire foundation of what we are doing.
I expect the same is the case for the Remain Faithful group.
And how do you know what all these groups are doing? Because they operate in the open, a concept that seems foreign to our diocesan leadership.
The bishop writes, "At this very tense and troubled time in the life of our Church, I am simply asking each of you to respect and be guided by my pastoral direction and leadership as your bishop by leading your congregation(s) in this discernment program. Ultimately, no one from outside can tell you and your people what you should decide is the best way forward for your congregation."
Gee, let's see. Why is this such a tense and troubled time? Oh, that would be because of all the lies people have been told about the Episcopal Church and all the rumors we hear about what your intentions are. For years you assured us that you had no intention of leaving the Episcopal Church. So did Bishop Pope, right up to the day before he left the Episcopal Church.
So now it's clear you DO intend to leave the Episcopal Church, but to go where? Are you "going to the Southern Cone" or are you "going to Rome"? It's hard to know what to believe when senior priests say one thing and you say another. Frankly, the recent back-and-forth between you and your own loyal clergy over their presentation to the Roman Catholic bishop didn't do a lot for your credibility.
Bishop Iker, while I certainly respect your office, I respectfully decline to be guided by your pastoral direction and leadership on this matter. You have made your intentions clear -- you plan to leave the Episcopal Church, and in so doing, violate the vows you took as a priest and as a bishop to the church that ordained and consecrated you.
During your episcopacy you have not missed one opportunity to say something negative about the Episcopal Church. Indeed I cannot recall you EVER saying anything positive about it in any public forum.
You have refused to worship with other Episcopalians time and again.
The legal arguments you advance to bolster your case are tissue-paper thin.
Your actions are tearing congregations apart, and breaking the hearts of more people than you can imagine. What is being done to the people of this diocese is a sin.
But you are indeed right that no one can tell a priest or a layperson what is right for their congregation. Only the individual priest and layperson can decide that. A parish cannot decide to leave the Episcopal Church. Neither can a diocese.
Even if you say it again and again, it doesn't make it true.
So thanks, but no thanks. I won't be participating in this program. It's too little and waaayyyyy too late, and too slanted to be trusted.
A PASTORAL REQUEST FROM THE BISHOP
This message is specifically directed to every priest in charge of a congregation in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. However, I am sending it to all clergy, vestry members, and convention delegates on our mailing list so that everyone will know what I am proposing.
As the date approaches for our momentous Diocesan Convention vote in November, many parish clergy have attempted to make certain that their parishioners understand the issues surrounding the proposal that we separate from the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. In several places parish forums have been held, where outside speakers have been brought in to present the opposing sides on the question of realignment. Some of you have preached sermons on this subject, written articles for your parish newsletter, and even in a couple of places brought in General Convention authorities to speak your people.
In addition, several different groups have been formed in the Diocese, including Remain Episcopal, Via Media, and Remain Faithful, which have attempted to educate, organize, and motivate the laity to take sides on the question: “Should we remain with TEC or with the Diocese?” Legal counsel has been engaged, lawsuits are being anticipated, various steering committees have been formed, and outside assistance from the “815” church headquarters in New York is being sought.
An important factor that has often been forgotten in all of the controversy is the need for prayerful discernment that seeks, above all else, to know what God’s will is for us at this particular time in our life together as a diocesan family.
As your bishop and chief pastor, I am inviting and urging that every congregation in this Diocese enter into an intentional 40 day period of prayerful discernment to be concluded the week prior to our Convention on November 14 and 15. This means that our start-up day would have to be either September 28 or 29. Furthermore, I am proposing that we all use the same materials and process that will lead us in this venture. All the information that you will need may be found at this website: http://www.40daysofdiscernment.org/ Please go to that site today or tomorrow and get everything you need in order to begin.
Fr. David Klein has already completed this program at St. John’s Church in Fort Worth, and I am certain that he is willing to commend it to you and to answer any questions you may have about it in advance.
I will not force any of you to comply with this request. At this very tense and troubled time in the life of our Church, I am simply asking each of you to respect and be guided by my pastoral direction and leadership as your bishop by leading your congregation(s) in this discernment program. Ultimately, no one from outside can tell you and your people what you should decide is the best way forward for your congregation. This 40-day program is to help each local congregation, as a body of Christian believers, to enter into a prayerful and reasoned process to help discern a way forward through the crisis that is confronting us.
Please let me know how I can be of assistance as we move forward together as the Holy Spirit leads us.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
September 3, 2008
++++
This message is available on the diocesan Web site.
-----------------------
I am very glad Bishop Iker isn't going to "force" us all to participate in this, given that he has no power to force anyone except clergy to do so.
But as usual, he makes no effort to be even-handed. Just look at how he phrases the question: “Should we remain with TEC or with the Diocese?”
Many of us plan to do both, bishop, since you can't "take' the diocese anywhere.
The question should be "Should we remain with the Episcopal Church, or leave it for some other entity?" The diocese stays right here, and will reorganize itself, elect a new bishop, and get on with God's work in this part of Texas.
The materials the bishop mentions have been produced and copyrighted by The Falls Church and Truro Church Virginia, both of which have left the Episcopal Church to join CANA, the Convocation of Anglicans in America. They claim Martyn Minns, former rector of Truro Church, as their bishop, he having been consecrated by Peter Akinola, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
I guess I should be glad that at last, Bishop Iker is encouraging discussion of the issues here. But you know, somehow, I just can't bring myself to trust that anything produced by this group wasn't created to produce the outcome they want -- acquiescence to Bishop Iker's desire to leave the Episcopal Church.
Because that is the intent. To leave the Episcopal Church. That's what "separating from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church" means.
And, how insulting is this? "An important factor that has often been forgotten in all of the controversy is the need for prayerful discernment that seeks, above all else, to know what God’s will is for us at this particular time in our life together as a diocesan family."
I've got news for you, Bishop Iker. A whole lot of us have been prayerfully trying to discern what God's will is in this situation for several years now. In fact, far from forgetting prayer, it has been all that has kept some of us going at times in the face of the bullying behavior of some of the clergy here and the massive amounts of disinformation about the Episcopal Church disseminated by you and your supporters.
I cannot speak for Remain Faithful, but I can for Fort Worth Via Media, North Texans Remain Episcopal, both in Wichita Falls and Granbury, and for the Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians. Prayerful discernment of God's will for us is the entire foundation of what we are doing.
I expect the same is the case for the Remain Faithful group.
And how do you know what all these groups are doing? Because they operate in the open, a concept that seems foreign to our diocesan leadership.
The bishop writes, "At this very tense and troubled time in the life of our Church, I am simply asking each of you to respect and be guided by my pastoral direction and leadership as your bishop by leading your congregation(s) in this discernment program. Ultimately, no one from outside can tell you and your people what you should decide is the best way forward for your congregation."
Gee, let's see. Why is this such a tense and troubled time? Oh, that would be because of all the lies people have been told about the Episcopal Church and all the rumors we hear about what your intentions are. For years you assured us that you had no intention of leaving the Episcopal Church. So did Bishop Pope, right up to the day before he left the Episcopal Church.
So now it's clear you DO intend to leave the Episcopal Church, but to go where? Are you "going to the Southern Cone" or are you "going to Rome"? It's hard to know what to believe when senior priests say one thing and you say another. Frankly, the recent back-and-forth between you and your own loyal clergy over their presentation to the Roman Catholic bishop didn't do a lot for your credibility.
Bishop Iker, while I certainly respect your office, I respectfully decline to be guided by your pastoral direction and leadership on this matter. You have made your intentions clear -- you plan to leave the Episcopal Church, and in so doing, violate the vows you took as a priest and as a bishop to the church that ordained and consecrated you.
During your episcopacy you have not missed one opportunity to say something negative about the Episcopal Church. Indeed I cannot recall you EVER saying anything positive about it in any public forum.
You have refused to worship with other Episcopalians time and again.
The legal arguments you advance to bolster your case are tissue-paper thin.
Your actions are tearing congregations apart, and breaking the hearts of more people than you can imagine. What is being done to the people of this diocese is a sin.
But you are indeed right that no one can tell a priest or a layperson what is right for their congregation. Only the individual priest and layperson can decide that. A parish cannot decide to leave the Episcopal Church. Neither can a diocese.
Even if you say it again and again, it doesn't make it true.
So thanks, but no thanks. I won't be participating in this program. It's too little and waaayyyyy too late, and too slanted to be trusted.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Texas Faith 2
Texas Faith is a weekly online feature that draws upon the expertise of clergy, laity and academics in Texas to debate, discuss and define the intersection of religion, politics and culture.
This week's question is pegged to the Republican convention:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is about to go under the microscope that Obama, McCain and Biden have already experienced. Is there a particular faith-related question you would like to see her address? Is there a faith-related question the others have not answered you'd like to see asked? And why?
Answers this week from Joe Clifford,William B. Lawrence,Darrell Bock, Katie Sherrod, Trey Graham, Amy Martin, Robin W. Lovin, Gerald Britt, Matthew Wilson, George Mason, Bob Dean, Diane Presley, Cynthia Rigby, Larry Bethune, Clara M. Reed, Ric Dexter, Mohamed Elibiary, Geoffrey Dennis, Daniel Kanter, and Lynn Godsey.
Please feel free to add your own comments.
GERALD BRITT, vice president, Central Dallas Ministries
It's recently been revealed that Governor Palin's 17 year old daughter is five months pregnant and unmarried. The plans are for her daughter to have the child and for her to marry the child's father. Admirable. Through a McCain spokesman this was referred to as a family matter and that the Palins were going to unconditionally support their daughter. Again, admirable. The campaign said, 'Life happens' and referred to them as 'An American family'.
I think it is safe to say that the more conservative evangelicals have not been equally as charitable and supportive in some of their public statements when it has come to people of much more modest means than the governor.While all of this takes place in the context of a personal circumstance, the fact is that it begs the question regarding to the role of grace and unconditional acceptance of those who are not like us when it comes to their violation of our Christian convictions. Such personal religious views make us more or less sympathetic and influence the way our public officials develop and support legislation.My question is, how does she plan to use the influence of her current position as a Vice-Presidential candidate to moderate or counter some of the more harsh assessments of her evangelical constituents when it comes to more economically disadvantaged children who have made the same 'mistake' as this was referred to by the dean of Liberty University.
TREY GRAHAM, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Melissa
Sen. McCain has made a strong, bold move to appeal to conservative voters by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin, an evangelical Christian who is young, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights, fiscally conservative, and a Washington outsider.
My questions for Gov. Palin: How did your biblical view of the value of human life influence your decision to carry your Down Syndrome child to full-term and delivery? How will your Christian faith help you and your family prepare for and handle the relentless barrage of attacks from the Democrats, both personal and professional, both fair and unfair?
My questions for Sen. Obama: You have a very eclectic religious background. Newsweek described the religious views of your parents as "a Christian-turned-secular mother and a Muslim-turned-atheist African father." You personally described your mother as an agnostic. Newsweek described your maternal grandparents as "two lapsed Christians." Your long-time pastor, advisor and friend is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a strong proponent of black liberation theology? Which of these various faith systems most influenced your personal version of liberal Christianity, and how?
My question for Sen. Biden: How do you reconcile these political positions with the teachings of your Roman Catholic faith: support for abortion, support for embryonic stem cell research, opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and support of the initiative to redefine hate crimes to include sexual orientation?
My question for Sen. McCain: Your pastor in Arizona, Rev. Dan Yeary, is on record to the Baptist Press describing your Christian walk as genuine and real. Pastor Yeary said of you, "he has a strong faith and he is committed to Christ." Why are you so reluctant to publicly express and explain your faith in Jesus as your personal Savior and guide?
CYNTHIA RIGBY, professor, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary
I'm not sure what a "faith-related question," as opposed to a question that is not "faith-related," would look like. I think it is important that we who are self-identified people of faith ask Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin about all matters we believe crucial to the future of our country and our global society. And insofar as the candidates themselves make the claim that their religious convictions inform their policies, we have a responsibility as American citizens to engage, encourage, and/or critique their theologizing.
I do not yet know whether Sarah Palin is willing to discuss, with any depth, the relation of her faith claims to her politics. I hope she is. I am concerned by reports, however, that she at once both advocates the teaching of creationism in public schools and refuses to comment on what she believes about evolution.
I would therefore like to ask her: "Can you please tell us more about how your belief that God created the universe informs your stated view that creationism be taught, alongside evolution, in the public school system?" And, perhaps, a follow-up: "In your view, is it possible to believe God created the universe and, at the same time, to embrace evolutionary theory?"
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and professor, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
Here are the faith-related questions that I would like Governor Palin to address:1. As the American people become acquainted with you and your background, what religious traditions, spiritual guides, and theological thinkers would you want the nation to consider the spiritually formative forces in your life?2. Having identified yourself as strongly pro-life and strongly in favor of capital punishment, what religious or theological perspective frames those issues for you and allows you--intellectually and spiritually--to hold what appear to be such contradictory points of view?3. As you have traveled across Alaska, particularly during your campaign for governor and during your twenty months in office, what religious practices have you encountered among native peoples that you have found especially worth affirming?4. Would you advocate continuation of the current White House faith-based initiatives?5. What is the most recent book on religion that you have read?
KATIE SHERROD, independent writer and producer; progressive Episcopalian activist, Fort Worth
Alaska Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is a self-declared feminist, a wife, and the mother of five children, one a five-month-old baby with Downs Syndrome and one a pregnant unwed 17-year-old. She apparently has no problem balancing her responsibilities as a wife and mother with the demands of a high-profile job such as governor, and now, candidate for vice president of the United States. John McCain is clearly hoping she will appeal to the many American women who daily juggle the demands of family and work responsibilities. How does she respond to those among her brother and sister conservative fundamentalist evangelicals who believe scripture teaches that a woman's place is in the home, condemns pre-marital sex, and forbids a woman to "teach" a man?
------------------
Read it all here.
This week's question is pegged to the Republican convention:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is about to go under the microscope that Obama, McCain and Biden have already experienced. Is there a particular faith-related question you would like to see her address? Is there a faith-related question the others have not answered you'd like to see asked? And why?
Answers this week from Joe Clifford,William B. Lawrence,Darrell Bock, Katie Sherrod, Trey Graham, Amy Martin, Robin W. Lovin, Gerald Britt, Matthew Wilson, George Mason, Bob Dean, Diane Presley, Cynthia Rigby, Larry Bethune, Clara M. Reed, Ric Dexter, Mohamed Elibiary, Geoffrey Dennis, Daniel Kanter, and Lynn Godsey.
Please feel free to add your own comments.
GERALD BRITT, vice president, Central Dallas Ministries
It's recently been revealed that Governor Palin's 17 year old daughter is five months pregnant and unmarried. The plans are for her daughter to have the child and for her to marry the child's father. Admirable. Through a McCain spokesman this was referred to as a family matter and that the Palins were going to unconditionally support their daughter. Again, admirable. The campaign said, 'Life happens' and referred to them as 'An American family'.
I think it is safe to say that the more conservative evangelicals have not been equally as charitable and supportive in some of their public statements when it has come to people of much more modest means than the governor.While all of this takes place in the context of a personal circumstance, the fact is that it begs the question regarding to the role of grace and unconditional acceptance of those who are not like us when it comes to their violation of our Christian convictions. Such personal religious views make us more or less sympathetic and influence the way our public officials develop and support legislation.My question is, how does she plan to use the influence of her current position as a Vice-Presidential candidate to moderate or counter some of the more harsh assessments of her evangelical constituents when it comes to more economically disadvantaged children who have made the same 'mistake' as this was referred to by the dean of Liberty University.
TREY GRAHAM, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Melissa
Sen. McCain has made a strong, bold move to appeal to conservative voters by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin, an evangelical Christian who is young, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights, fiscally conservative, and a Washington outsider.
My questions for Gov. Palin: How did your biblical view of the value of human life influence your decision to carry your Down Syndrome child to full-term and delivery? How will your Christian faith help you and your family prepare for and handle the relentless barrage of attacks from the Democrats, both personal and professional, both fair and unfair?
My questions for Sen. Obama: You have a very eclectic religious background. Newsweek described the religious views of your parents as "a Christian-turned-secular mother and a Muslim-turned-atheist African father." You personally described your mother as an agnostic. Newsweek described your maternal grandparents as "two lapsed Christians." Your long-time pastor, advisor and friend is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a strong proponent of black liberation theology? Which of these various faith systems most influenced your personal version of liberal Christianity, and how?
My question for Sen. Biden: How do you reconcile these political positions with the teachings of your Roman Catholic faith: support for abortion, support for embryonic stem cell research, opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and support of the initiative to redefine hate crimes to include sexual orientation?
My question for Sen. McCain: Your pastor in Arizona, Rev. Dan Yeary, is on record to the Baptist Press describing your Christian walk as genuine and real. Pastor Yeary said of you, "he has a strong faith and he is committed to Christ." Why are you so reluctant to publicly express and explain your faith in Jesus as your personal Savior and guide?
CYNTHIA RIGBY, professor, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary
I'm not sure what a "faith-related question," as opposed to a question that is not "faith-related," would look like. I think it is important that we who are self-identified people of faith ask Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin about all matters we believe crucial to the future of our country and our global society. And insofar as the candidates themselves make the claim that their religious convictions inform their policies, we have a responsibility as American citizens to engage, encourage, and/or critique their theologizing.
I do not yet know whether Sarah Palin is willing to discuss, with any depth, the relation of her faith claims to her politics. I hope she is. I am concerned by reports, however, that she at once both advocates the teaching of creationism in public schools and refuses to comment on what she believes about evolution.
I would therefore like to ask her: "Can you please tell us more about how your belief that God created the universe informs your stated view that creationism be taught, alongside evolution, in the public school system?" And, perhaps, a follow-up: "In your view, is it possible to believe God created the universe and, at the same time, to embrace evolutionary theory?"
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and professor, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
Here are the faith-related questions that I would like Governor Palin to address:1. As the American people become acquainted with you and your background, what religious traditions, spiritual guides, and theological thinkers would you want the nation to consider the spiritually formative forces in your life?2. Having identified yourself as strongly pro-life and strongly in favor of capital punishment, what religious or theological perspective frames those issues for you and allows you--intellectually and spiritually--to hold what appear to be such contradictory points of view?3. As you have traveled across Alaska, particularly during your campaign for governor and during your twenty months in office, what religious practices have you encountered among native peoples that you have found especially worth affirming?4. Would you advocate continuation of the current White House faith-based initiatives?5. What is the most recent book on religion that you have read?
KATIE SHERROD, independent writer and producer; progressive Episcopalian activist, Fort Worth
Alaska Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is a self-declared feminist, a wife, and the mother of five children, one a five-month-old baby with Downs Syndrome and one a pregnant unwed 17-year-old. She apparently has no problem balancing her responsibilities as a wife and mother with the demands of a high-profile job such as governor, and now, candidate for vice president of the United States. John McCain is clearly hoping she will appeal to the many American women who daily juggle the demands of family and work responsibilities. How does she respond to those among her brother and sister conservative fundamentalist evangelicals who believe scripture teaches that a woman's place is in the home, condemns pre-marital sex, and forbids a woman to "teach" a man?
------------------
Read it all here.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Court maintains freeze on San Joaquin Diocesan accounts
From Episcopal Cafe comes this update in things in San Joaquin.
The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has issued a press release (pdf) reproduced in full below:
August 26, 2008
Court maintains freeze on Episcopal Diocesan accounts pending litigation
In April the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin filed a lawsuit to recover the property and the assets of the Diocese from its former bishop, John-David Schofield. As a result of this lawsuit several of the disputed investment accounts and related funds belonging to the Diocese were frozen.
In a hearing yesterday, the Court adopted a stipulation and ordered that these accounts may only be accessed with the consent of the Episcopal Diocese and/or by further order of the Court. Several of the affected accounts included those critical to the operations of the Evergreen Conference Center in Oakhurst (ECCO).
Bishop Jerry Lamb called the continuation of ECCO’s ministry “critical.” At the direction of the Episcopal Diocesan Council, the Chancellor for the Diocese and attorneys for the Episcopal Church contacted Mr. Schofield’s attorneys to negotiate terms for interim access to funds to support camp operations, including staff salaries, daily operations and certain capital improvements. According to the order and stipulation, the ECCO management will provide operational and financial information to the Episcopal Diocese and report to Diocesan Council.
Copies of the Court’s Order and Stipulation are posted on the diocesan website (http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/).
The Court has set a tentative date of August 24, 2009 to hear the lawsuit.
Direct links to the Court's Order (4 page pdf image file) and Stipulation (14 page pdf image file).
The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has issued a press release (pdf) reproduced in full below:
August 26, 2008
Court maintains freeze on Episcopal Diocesan accounts pending litigation
In April the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin filed a lawsuit to recover the property and the assets of the Diocese from its former bishop, John-David Schofield. As a result of this lawsuit several of the disputed investment accounts and related funds belonging to the Diocese were frozen.
In a hearing yesterday, the Court adopted a stipulation and ordered that these accounts may only be accessed with the consent of the Episcopal Diocese and/or by further order of the Court. Several of the affected accounts included those critical to the operations of the Evergreen Conference Center in Oakhurst (ECCO).
Bishop Jerry Lamb called the continuation of ECCO’s ministry “critical.” At the direction of the Episcopal Diocesan Council, the Chancellor for the Diocese and attorneys for the Episcopal Church contacted Mr. Schofield’s attorneys to negotiate terms for interim access to funds to support camp operations, including staff salaries, daily operations and certain capital improvements. According to the order and stipulation, the ECCO management will provide operational and financial information to the Episcopal Diocese and report to Diocesan Council.
Copies of the Court’s Order and Stipulation are posted on the diocesan website (http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/).
The Court has set a tentative date of August 24, 2009 to hear the lawsuit.
Direct links to the Court's Order (4 page pdf image file) and Stipulation (14 page pdf image file).
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Texas Faith debuts in Dallas News
Texas Faith: Religion's role at the Democratic National Convention
10:05 AM Tue, Aug 26, 2008
William McKenzie
Welcome to Texas Faith, our new discussion of religion, politics and culture. Texas Faith is a weekly online feature that will draw upon the expertise of clergy, laity and academics in Texas to debate, discuss and define the intersection of these volatile topics.
Our opening topic of the week revolves around the Democratic convention. We put this question to our panel:
From Faith Caucus meetings to panel discussions on morality to debates about an Obama administration and religion, the Democratic convention is spotlighting an enormous amount of explicit religious content. What does this mean? Is this appropriate?
Answers this week come from:
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and professor, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University; GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami, Flower Mound; KATIE SHERROD, independent writer and producer and progressive Episcopalian activist, Fort Worth; LYNN GODSEY, Pastor, Temple of Power Ministries, Ennis, and founder, Alliance of Hispanic Evangelical Ministers; DARRELL BOCK, Dallas Theological Seminary professor; JOE CLIFFORD, Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas; DEAL HUDSON, director, The Morley Publishing Group, Washington, D.C.; TREY GRAHAM, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Melissa, ; CYNTHIA RIGBY, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary professor; BRIAN SCHMISEK, University of Dallas professor; MATTHEW WILSON, Southern Methodist University professor; GERALD BRITT, vice president, Central Dallas Ministries; LILLIAN PINKUS, Community volunteer and executive committee member of the Dallas Anti-Defamation League; LARRY BETHUNE, Pastor, University Baptist Church, Austin, ; BOB DEAN, executive director, Dallas Baptist Association; ROBIN LOVIN, professor, Southern Methodist University and Perkins School of Theology; AMY MARTIN, executive director, Earth Rhythms, Dallas, ; MOHAMED ELIBIARY, President and CEO, The Freedom and Justice Foundation, Dallas; GEORGE MASON, Pastor, Wilshire Avenue Baptist Church, Dallas.
You can read their answers below. And, please, chime in and let us know your thoughts about this topic and what the panelists say about it!
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and professor, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
The question about whether it is appropriate for Mr. Obama's convention to include an enormous amount of explicit religious content is itself disingenuous. After all, this is a man who has been compelled, in the face of false accusations and deceptive assertions, to explain his personal faith.
He has had to clarify that he is a Christian, not a Muslim. He has had to defend the content of the sermons that were delivered by his former pastor. In the face of egregious attacks that affected his family and his local church, he has been forced to resign from membership in a congregation where he worshiped for decades.
Meanwhile, he is the candidate of a political party that, until very recently, has resisted any conversation about religion in the public sphere--ceding that topic to its opposition, and letting the other party define terms like "Christian" and "evangelical" and "religion" as they apply to great public issues. Mr. Obama is trying to broaden the conversation about religion, to signal that his party is no longer afraid to discuss it, and to help the electorate discuss religion from a perspective of tolerance rather than fear.
GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami, Flower Mound; University of North Texas professor
Frankly, I have been disillusioned by the divisive role religion has played in this election so far. I view the growing focus on the explicit beliefs of the candidates with great unease.
Whether Democrat or Republican, candidates feeling obligated to offer creedal statements about their Christian faith (or denials of Moslem faith) is driving us back to the pre-Kennedy era where a candidate's doctrinal confession is a greater political concern than his or her competence in statecraft.
I fear this trend means the political process is stacking the deck against capable people of minority faith, or no faith at all, successfully running for office. I regard this as a grave threat to the long-term health of our body politic.
So much for specificity. I also find applying religious generalizations to political problems equally troubling.
Pastor Warren asked each candidate, "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?" The theologically thoughtful answer is, "Every sane person combats evil policies, but the president can't 'defeat' evil." No mortal can. This was a question better suited for someone who is running for super-hero rather than for president.
KATIE SHERROD, independent writer and producer; progressive Episcopalian activist, Fort Worth
It means the Democrats are trying to beat the Republicans at their holier-than-thou game.
Is it appropriate? It is always appropriate for individuals to talk about their faith and how that faith informs their lives, relationships, decisions. It is appropriate for Barack Obama and John McCain to talk about their faith and its impact on their lives and their decisions.
I do, though, have a a problem with having any minister, priest, pastor, imam, or rabbi conduct nationally--televised interviews with the candidates to "vet' their faith. I think that job still belongs to God.
It is not appropriate for a political organization to use faith/religion/God to "sell" their candidate and their policies. The implication is that God is on their side, and therefore, not on the "other" side. It is off-putting when the Republicans do it and it will be off-putting for the Democrats to do it.
It is as offensive as ads that use anichthys (the fish symbol for Christianity) or that declare something "a Christian business." One is using God as a shill to make money and the other is using God to shill for a candidate.
Read it all at here or go to www.dallasnews.com/texasfaith each Tuesday.
10:05 AM Tue, Aug 26, 2008
William McKenzie
Welcome to Texas Faith, our new discussion of religion, politics and culture. Texas Faith is a weekly online feature that will draw upon the expertise of clergy, laity and academics in Texas to debate, discuss and define the intersection of these volatile topics.
Our opening topic of the week revolves around the Democratic convention. We put this question to our panel:
From Faith Caucus meetings to panel discussions on morality to debates about an Obama administration and religion, the Democratic convention is spotlighting an enormous amount of explicit religious content. What does this mean? Is this appropriate?
Answers this week come from:
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and professor, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University; GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami, Flower Mound; KATIE SHERROD, independent writer and producer and progressive Episcopalian activist, Fort Worth; LYNN GODSEY, Pastor, Temple of Power Ministries, Ennis, and founder, Alliance of Hispanic Evangelical Ministers; DARRELL BOCK, Dallas Theological Seminary professor; JOE CLIFFORD, Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas; DEAL HUDSON, director, The Morley Publishing Group, Washington, D.C.; TREY GRAHAM, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Melissa, ; CYNTHIA RIGBY, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary professor; BRIAN SCHMISEK, University of Dallas professor; MATTHEW WILSON, Southern Methodist University professor; GERALD BRITT, vice president, Central Dallas Ministries; LILLIAN PINKUS, Community volunteer and executive committee member of the Dallas Anti-Defamation League; LARRY BETHUNE, Pastor, University Baptist Church, Austin, ; BOB DEAN, executive director, Dallas Baptist Association; ROBIN LOVIN, professor, Southern Methodist University and Perkins School of Theology; AMY MARTIN, executive director, Earth Rhythms, Dallas, ; MOHAMED ELIBIARY, President and CEO, The Freedom and Justice Foundation, Dallas; GEORGE MASON, Pastor, Wilshire Avenue Baptist Church, Dallas.
You can read their answers below. And, please, chime in and let us know your thoughts about this topic and what the panelists say about it!
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and professor, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
The question about whether it is appropriate for Mr. Obama's convention to include an enormous amount of explicit religious content is itself disingenuous. After all, this is a man who has been compelled, in the face of false accusations and deceptive assertions, to explain his personal faith.
He has had to clarify that he is a Christian, not a Muslim. He has had to defend the content of the sermons that were delivered by his former pastor. In the face of egregious attacks that affected his family and his local church, he has been forced to resign from membership in a congregation where he worshiped for decades.
Meanwhile, he is the candidate of a political party that, until very recently, has resisted any conversation about religion in the public sphere--ceding that topic to its opposition, and letting the other party define terms like "Christian" and "evangelical" and "religion" as they apply to great public issues. Mr. Obama is trying to broaden the conversation about religion, to signal that his party is no longer afraid to discuss it, and to help the electorate discuss religion from a perspective of tolerance rather than fear.
GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami, Flower Mound; University of North Texas professor
Frankly, I have been disillusioned by the divisive role religion has played in this election so far. I view the growing focus on the explicit beliefs of the candidates with great unease.
Whether Democrat or Republican, candidates feeling obligated to offer creedal statements about their Christian faith (or denials of Moslem faith) is driving us back to the pre-Kennedy era where a candidate's doctrinal confession is a greater political concern than his or her competence in statecraft.
I fear this trend means the political process is stacking the deck against capable people of minority faith, or no faith at all, successfully running for office. I regard this as a grave threat to the long-term health of our body politic.
So much for specificity. I also find applying religious generalizations to political problems equally troubling.
Pastor Warren asked each candidate, "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?" The theologically thoughtful answer is, "Every sane person combats evil policies, but the president can't 'defeat' evil." No mortal can. This was a question better suited for someone who is running for super-hero rather than for president.
KATIE SHERROD, independent writer and producer; progressive Episcopalian activist, Fort Worth
It means the Democrats are trying to beat the Republicans at their holier-than-thou game.
Is it appropriate? It is always appropriate for individuals to talk about their faith and how that faith informs their lives, relationships, decisions. It is appropriate for Barack Obama and John McCain to talk about their faith and its impact on their lives and their decisions.
I do, though, have a a problem with having any minister, priest, pastor, imam, or rabbi conduct nationally--televised interviews with the candidates to "vet' their faith. I think that job still belongs to God.
It is not appropriate for a political organization to use faith/religion/God to "sell" their candidate and their policies. The implication is that God is on their side, and therefore, not on the "other" side. It is off-putting when the Republicans do it and it will be off-putting for the Democrats to do it.
It is as offensive as ads that use anichthys (the fish symbol for Christianity) or that declare something "a Christian business." One is using God as a shill to make money and the other is using God to shill for a candidate.
Read it all at here or go to www.dallasnews.com/texasfaith each Tuesday.
The Girl Effect
Watch this. Think about it. Act on it. Please. For all of us.
Thanks to Elizabeth Kaeton for the tip.
Thanks to Elizabeth Kaeton for the tip.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Shield the Joyous!
I first met Lauren Stanley at a General Convention, in either Denver or Minneapolis. (After awhile, General Conventions can run together, because most convention centers essentially look alike. ) Lauren was helping Bishop Peter Lee put out a newspaper called The Center Aisle at convention. She and I became friends the way journalists do when they are covering the same event. I've read her stuff whenever I can ever since then.
This column is an especially good one. I found it at the Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation blog site here. It is also up at Episcopal Cafe.
Shield the joyous!
Monday, August 25, 2008
"Dean Martha heralds new day for women in Sudan" -- by the Rev. Lauren Stanley
RENK, Sudan – We made history in Sudan the other day, installing the Very Rev. Martha Deng Nhial as the first dean of the Cathedral of St. Matthew, Diocese of Renk, Episcopal Church of Sudan.
But being the first was not how the real history was made.
No, the real history was making a woman priest dean of a cathedral in Sudan. Dean Martha is the first to hold that office, just eight years after the Episcopal Church of Sudan decided to begin ordaining women as deacons and priest, just five years after Dean Martha was ordained a deacon, and only three years after she was ordained a priest.
Dean Martha is also one of the first African women to be dean of an African cathedral in the history of Christianity.
Women may not yet rule in Sudan, but some days, it sure seems that way.
A week after Dean Martha was installed, special prayers were offered at her home. Fifty women gathered to praise her, to praise the Church, and to thank God and the Church for lifting her up, and for her ability to lift all of us up in our lives. Even before she became dean, Martha was a force to be reckoned with in Renk. She was a nurse, as well as a member and then leader of the Mothers Union here. When she walked through town, with a purposeful stride, everyone could see that she was a woman of strength. (I once was compared to her because of the speed with which I walk, as well as my long stride. It was quite the compliment.) When Martha spoke, everyone listened, because they knew she was a woman of faith. When she became one of the first women priests ordained in Sudan, all applauded her for her courage.
Culturally, Sudan is still a land where women are expected to do certain kinds of work, none of which involve leadership. In the countryside, it is still not unusual to see the boys being educated while the girls are kept at home. In Renk, boys can pretty much roam the streets at will; girls, on the other hand, are kept under tighter supervision. (All of my young playmates, who come to hang out with me, play games, teach me Arabic, learn English from me and just keep me company, are boys. The girls are not allowed by their families to come play with me.)
So to see Dean Martha being installed – to see her daughters weep at her service – to hear the women in town sing her praises and encourage her to greater heights for herself and beg her to lead them to greater heights – was awe-inspiring.
Forget the history.
This was about women being shown that they, too, can lead, they, too, have something great to offer, they, too, deserve to be honored.
---------------------------
The Rev. Lauren R. Stanley is an Appointed Missionary of the Episcopal Church serving in the Diocese of Renk, Sudan. She is a lecturer at the Renk Theological College, teaching Theology, Liturgy and English, and serves as chaplain for the students.
This column is an especially good one. I found it at the Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation blog site here. It is also up at Episcopal Cafe.
Shield the joyous!
Monday, August 25, 2008
"Dean Martha heralds new day for women in Sudan" -- by the Rev. Lauren Stanley
RENK, Sudan – We made history in Sudan the other day, installing the Very Rev. Martha Deng Nhial as the first dean of the Cathedral of St. Matthew, Diocese of Renk, Episcopal Church of Sudan.
But being the first was not how the real history was made.
No, the real history was making a woman priest dean of a cathedral in Sudan. Dean Martha is the first to hold that office, just eight years after the Episcopal Church of Sudan decided to begin ordaining women as deacons and priest, just five years after Dean Martha was ordained a deacon, and only three years after she was ordained a priest.
Dean Martha is also one of the first African women to be dean of an African cathedral in the history of Christianity.
Women may not yet rule in Sudan, but some days, it sure seems that way.
A week after Dean Martha was installed, special prayers were offered at her home. Fifty women gathered to praise her, to praise the Church, and to thank God and the Church for lifting her up, and for her ability to lift all of us up in our lives. Even before she became dean, Martha was a force to be reckoned with in Renk. She was a nurse, as well as a member and then leader of the Mothers Union here. When she walked through town, with a purposeful stride, everyone could see that she was a woman of strength. (I once was compared to her because of the speed with which I walk, as well as my long stride. It was quite the compliment.) When Martha spoke, everyone listened, because they knew she was a woman of faith. When she became one of the first women priests ordained in Sudan, all applauded her for her courage.
Culturally, Sudan is still a land where women are expected to do certain kinds of work, none of which involve leadership. In the countryside, it is still not unusual to see the boys being educated while the girls are kept at home. In Renk, boys can pretty much roam the streets at will; girls, on the other hand, are kept under tighter supervision. (All of my young playmates, who come to hang out with me, play games, teach me Arabic, learn English from me and just keep me company, are boys. The girls are not allowed by their families to come play with me.)
So to see Dean Martha being installed – to see her daughters weep at her service – to hear the women in town sing her praises and encourage her to greater heights for herself and beg her to lead them to greater heights – was awe-inspiring.
Forget the history.
This was about women being shown that they, too, can lead, they, too, have something great to offer, they, too, deserve to be honored.
---------------------------
The Rev. Lauren R. Stanley is an Appointed Missionary of the Episcopal Church serving in the Diocese of Renk, Sudan. She is a lecturer at the Renk Theological College, teaching Theology, Liturgy and English, and serves as chaplain for the students.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Texas Faith announced
William McKenzie of the Dallas Morning News announced Texas Faith, a new feature of the Religion Blog at dallasnews.com, this week.
In the story below, Bill explains how it will work. I am one of the dozen or so people the Dallas News has invited to participate in this. I hope you will read it.
--------------------------------------
Texas Faith Starts Next Week
10 a.m. Monday August 18
William McKenzie
Normally, I don't jump in on the religion blog, but starting next week, this blog will be the site for a weekly online discussion about religion, politics and culture. The conversation will take place at www.dallasnews.com/texasfaith, which will have a link on the Opinion blog and Trailblazers.
Jeff Weiss, Wayne Slater, Rod Dreher and yours truly will be the rotating moderators. Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.
We hope this new feature will help all of us think through the interesting and complicated intersection of religion, politics and culture. With the presidential race going into overdrive, we will have plenty of issues to discuss. But this conversation will last long beyond the fall election, so we plan on making this a debate that runs across many levels of interest.
Check us out on Tuesday, August 26, when the first postings go up.
In the story below, Bill explains how it will work. I am one of the dozen or so people the Dallas News has invited to participate in this. I hope you will read it.
--------------------------------------
Texas Faith Starts Next Week
10 a.m. Monday August 18
William McKenzie
Normally, I don't jump in on the religion blog, but starting next week, this blog will be the site for a weekly online discussion about religion, politics and culture. The conversation will take place at www.dallasnews.com/texasfaith, which will have a link on the Opinion blog and Trailblazers.
Jeff Weiss, Wayne Slater, Rod Dreher and yours truly will be the rotating moderators. Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.
We hope this new feature will help all of us think through the interesting and complicated intersection of religion, politics and culture. With the presidential race going into overdrive, we will have plenty of issues to discuss. But this conversation will last long beyond the fall election, so we plan on making this a debate that runs across many levels of interest.
Check us out on Tuesday, August 26, when the first postings go up.
Some thoughtful reading
Over at his wonderful blog Preludium, Mark Harris points us to Simon Surmises, a blog by Canon Simon Mein, a theologian and teacher from England, now living and working in Delaware -- which is where Mark lives.
Canon Mein has republished on his blog a paper he wrote ten years ago entitled The status of homosexual persons *Some Theological Perspectives. He has broken it into three parts because it is long -- but it is well worth your time if you have questions about the theological underpinnings of the move to include LGBT Christians into the full life and ministry of the Church. It also includes very useful historical information about the Anglican Communion.
I recommend it to you.
Canon Mein has republished on his blog a paper he wrote ten years ago entitled The status of homosexual persons *Some Theological Perspectives. He has broken it into three parts because it is long -- but it is well worth your time if you have questions about the theological underpinnings of the move to include LGBT Christians into the full life and ministry of the Church. It also includes very useful historical information about the Anglican Communion.
I recommend it to you.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Madpriest's thought for the day
The future of the Anglican Communion does not hang in the balance.The Anglican Communion was crucified dead and buried the first time a primate refused to take communion with another primate.What does hang in the balance is the future of the trading company.
----------------
If you are not faint hearted and enjoy the British sense of humor, visit his site. I promise you it will brighten you day -- and give you things to think about
----------------
If you are not faint hearted and enjoy the British sense of humor, visit his site. I promise you it will brighten you day -- and give you things to think about
Monday, August 18, 2008
Bob Duncan removes all doubt
This should be of interest to bishops as they go to their next House of Bishops meeting where one of the items will be the deposition of Bob Duncan for abandonment of the Communion. He pretty clearly implicates Jack Iker and Keith Ackerman as well.
Thanks to Elizabeth Kaeton for this.
-----------------------
From: Duncan, Bob
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:35 PM
To:XXXXX
Subject: Windsor Contiuation Group Concerns
Dear XXXXX
It was very good to be with you at Lambeth. I especially appreciated the time we spent together looking at the relationship between the Common Cause Partners and the Communion Partners, as well as considering issues that are before the WCG.
I thought that you might appreciate hearing from me about concerns the approach of the WCG has caused for me and for all the Common Cause Partners.
The WCG proposes "cessation of all cross-border interventions and inter-provincial claims of jurisdiction." There are at least four serious problems with the thinking surrounding the work of the Windsor Continuation Group in this regard.
The first difficulty is the moral equivalence implied between the three moratoria, a notion specifically rejected in the original Windsor Report and at Dromantine.
The second is the notion that, even if the moratoria are held to be equally necessary, there would be some way to "freeze" the situation as it now stands for those of us in the process of separating from The Episcopal Church. The three dioceses of Pittsburgh, Quincy and Fort Worth have taken first constitutional votes on separation with second votes just weeks away. We all anticipate coming under Southern Cone this fall, thus to join San Joaquin. This process cannot be stopped -- constitutions require an automatic second vote, and to recommend against passage without guarantees from the other side would be suicidal.
The third reality is that those already separated parishes and missionary jurisdictions under Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Southern Cone (including Recife) will never consent to the "holding tank" whose stated purpose is eventual "reconciliation" with TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada. (It was obvious to all at Lambeth that the majorities in the US and Canada have no intention of reversing direction.)
The fourth matter is that the legal proceedings brought by TEC and ACC against many of us have been nowhere suspended by these aggressor provinces, with no willingness to mediate or negotiate though we have proposed it repeatedly, not least since Dar es Salaam.
For your information, I have written to John Chew and Donald Mtetemela in a similar way. I have also written to the Global South Primates who signed the open letter dated 3 August. I hope this finds you well. As I pledged when we saw each other, I will do what I can to keep you informed of thinking among the Common Cause Partners, and will do what I can to see that any solutions imagined include both the Communion Partners (on the inside) and the Common Cause Partners (most of whom are on the outside of TEC, or on their way out.)
Blessings to you and yours,
+Bob
Thanks to Elizabeth Kaeton for this.
-----------------------
From: Duncan, Bob
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:35 PM
To:XXXXX
Subject: Windsor Contiuation Group Concerns
Dear XXXXX
It was very good to be with you at Lambeth. I especially appreciated the time we spent together looking at the relationship between the Common Cause Partners and the Communion Partners, as well as considering issues that are before the WCG.
I thought that you might appreciate hearing from me about concerns the approach of the WCG has caused for me and for all the Common Cause Partners.
The WCG proposes "cessation of all cross-border interventions and inter-provincial claims of jurisdiction." There are at least four serious problems with the thinking surrounding the work of the Windsor Continuation Group in this regard.
The first difficulty is the moral equivalence implied between the three moratoria, a notion specifically rejected in the original Windsor Report and at Dromantine.
The second is the notion that, even if the moratoria are held to be equally necessary, there would be some way to "freeze" the situation as it now stands for those of us in the process of separating from The Episcopal Church. The three dioceses of Pittsburgh, Quincy and Fort Worth have taken first constitutional votes on separation with second votes just weeks away. We all anticipate coming under Southern Cone this fall, thus to join San Joaquin. This process cannot be stopped -- constitutions require an automatic second vote, and to recommend against passage without guarantees from the other side would be suicidal.
The third reality is that those already separated parishes and missionary jurisdictions under Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Southern Cone (including Recife) will never consent to the "holding tank" whose stated purpose is eventual "reconciliation" with TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada. (It was obvious to all at Lambeth that the majorities in the US and Canada have no intention of reversing direction.)
The fourth matter is that the legal proceedings brought by TEC and ACC against many of us have been nowhere suspended by these aggressor provinces, with no willingness to mediate or negotiate though we have proposed it repeatedly, not least since Dar es Salaam.
For your information, I have written to John Chew and Donald Mtetemela in a similar way. I have also written to the Global South Primates who signed the open letter dated 3 August. I hope this finds you well. As I pledged when we saw each other, I will do what I can to keep you informed of thinking among the Common Cause Partners, and will do what I can to see that any solutions imagined include both the Communion Partners (on the inside) and the Common Cause Partners (most of whom are on the outside of TEC, or on their way out.)
Blessings to you and yours,
+Bob
Sunday, August 17, 2008
What the Ad Clerum COULD have said
John S. Morgan of Fort Worth offers his response to the Ad Clerum in which four senior priests of the diocese apologized. It begins with a brief excerpt from the document the four sent to the Roman Catholic bishop.
-------------------------------------
Background: "Furthermore, in April, 2006 the four priests making this presentation, with our Bishop and two other priests of our Diocese, met with Bernard Cardinal Law at his residence in Rome. At that meeting we discussed our plight with him."
What the ad clerum said:
We wish to emphasize:
1. That the documents and our conversation with Bishop Vann solely ever
represented the four priests named.
2. In retrospect, we regret our choice of timing for starting these
conversations.
3. We deeply regret the phraseology of the
document which has caused hurt and division.
4. We remain fully committed to the goal of this Diocese, as plainly
stated by Bishop Iker, to realign with an Orthodox Anglican Province.
Respectfully submitted, N,N, N, and N
What the ad clerum could have said:
We wish to emphasize:
1. That the documents and our conversation with Bishop Vann solely ever represented the four priests named. But our estimate still stands. "There are currently 60 active clergy We believe 9 will opt to stay in The Episcopal Church. 51 will remain in a temporarily realigned diocese with the Southern Cone. 5 are not interested at this time in working for full communion. 46 are truly interested. If we add our seminarians currently on the priesthood track and our retired clergy the number becomes 59." Badmouthing the Episcopal Church year in and year out helps get active recruits. "Our best guess is that approximately 59 clergy are willing to pursue an active plan to bring the Diocese of Fort Worth or a significant portion of it into full communion with the Holy See, if this be God's will." At least it is what we want to do. Will some be without a church building in this schism? Yes but that is not our concern.
2. In retrospect, we regret our choice of timing for starting these conversations. There is a timing problem here. First we go to the Southern Cone then, later, we become Roman Catholic. No sense rushing things. While we still "believe the Catholic Faith is true" we are not going there alone. "The Protestant/Low Church teachings, the Liberals experiential teachings are just not true." "The Catholic faith, the Catholic practice, the Catholic teaching - is true." Meanwhile we shall remain in the camp of the false for a season.
3. We deeply regret the phraseology of the document which has caused hurt and division. We don't regret the content of the document but that will have to wait for a while since premature disclosure of our clandestine work has created such an uproar that we feel pressured, not to recant or repent, but merely to apologize. We well understand that the "phraseology" of our attempt to move a whole Episcopal diocese to Rome might be unsettling to some. We would be grateful if you could propose better words or phrases for our endeavor.
4. We remain fully committed to the goal of this Diocese, as plainly stated by Bishop Iker, to realign with an Orthodox Anglican Province. We are fully aware that the constitution of the Southern Cone does not permit this. But, we shall remain as committed to Bishop Iker as we are to our oath to uphold the, doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.
Like we indicated in 1 and 2 above, first we go to the Southern Cone then, later, we become Roman Catholic. By that time there will be few options left for a maverick Anglo-Catholic diocese residing, temporarily, deep in Evangelical territory. And, yes, we also recognize that it will take time to bring the laity on board with this proposal. Perhaps longer than we think.
Respectfully submitted, N,N, N, and N
-------------------------------------
Background: "Furthermore, in April, 2006 the four priests making this presentation, with our Bishop and two other priests of our Diocese, met with Bernard Cardinal Law at his residence in Rome. At that meeting we discussed our plight with him."
What the ad clerum said:
We wish to emphasize:
1. That the documents and our conversation with Bishop Vann solely ever
represented the four priests named.
2. In retrospect, we regret our choice of timing for starting these
conversations.
3. We deeply regret the phraseology of the
document which has caused hurt and division.
4. We remain fully committed to the goal of this Diocese, as plainly
stated by Bishop Iker, to realign with an Orthodox Anglican Province.
Respectfully submitted, N,N, N, and N
What the ad clerum could have said:
We wish to emphasize:
1. That the documents and our conversation with Bishop Vann solely ever represented the four priests named. But our estimate still stands. "There are currently 60 active clergy We believe 9 will opt to stay in The Episcopal Church. 51 will remain in a temporarily realigned diocese with the Southern Cone. 5 are not interested at this time in working for full communion. 46 are truly interested. If we add our seminarians currently on the priesthood track and our retired clergy the number becomes 59." Badmouthing the Episcopal Church year in and year out helps get active recruits. "Our best guess is that approximately 59 clergy are willing to pursue an active plan to bring the Diocese of Fort Worth or a significant portion of it into full communion with the Holy See, if this be God's will." At least it is what we want to do. Will some be without a church building in this schism? Yes but that is not our concern.
2. In retrospect, we regret our choice of timing for starting these conversations. There is a timing problem here. First we go to the Southern Cone then, later, we become Roman Catholic. No sense rushing things. While we still "believe the Catholic Faith is true" we are not going there alone. "The Protestant/Low Church teachings, the Liberals experiential teachings are just not true." "The Catholic faith, the Catholic practice, the Catholic teaching - is true." Meanwhile we shall remain in the camp of the false for a season.
3. We deeply regret the phraseology of the document which has caused hurt and division. We don't regret the content of the document but that will have to wait for a while since premature disclosure of our clandestine work has created such an uproar that we feel pressured, not to recant or repent, but merely to apologize. We well understand that the "phraseology" of our attempt to move a whole Episcopal diocese to Rome might be unsettling to some. We would be grateful if you could propose better words or phrases for our endeavor.
4. We remain fully committed to the goal of this Diocese, as plainly stated by Bishop Iker, to realign with an Orthodox Anglican Province. We are fully aware that the constitution of the Southern Cone does not permit this. But, we shall remain as committed to Bishop Iker as we are to our oath to uphold the, doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.
Like we indicated in 1 and 2 above, first we go to the Southern Cone then, later, we become Roman Catholic. By that time there will be few options left for a maverick Anglo-Catholic diocese residing, temporarily, deep in Evangelical territory. And, yes, we also recognize that it will take time to bring the laity on board with this proposal. Perhaps longer than we think.
Respectfully submitted, N,N, N, and N
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The backpedaling continues
Read on to see what happens even to longtime loyal priests in this diocese when they embarrass Bishop Jack Iker. These four senior priests of the diocese -- all of whom have been staunch supporters and defenders of Bishop Iker - obviously believed they had his support in making their proposal to the Roman Catholic bishop. They would never have done something that serious unless they believed that.
The negative reaction from the people of the diocese must have been beyond enormous to cause the bishop to demand this public a retraction and have it issued at 9:42 p.m. on a Saturday night. But after all, what are four longtime friends when it comes to saving face?
---------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 9:42 PM
Cc: Bishop Iker
Subject: Ad Clerum: Statement
To the clergy,
The following statement has been released jointly by Canon Charles Hough, Fr. William Crary, Fr. Christopher Stainbrook, and Fr. Louis Tobola in reference to the document released earlier this week concerning a June meeting between them and Bishop Kevin Vann.
Bishop Iker and the Standing Committee have asked that it be conveyed to you via Ad Clerum. It will be sent to all convention delegates and alternates as well.
Suzanne Gill
+++++
From: Fathers Crary, Hough, Stainbrook, and Tobola
Date: August 16, 2008
To: The Clergy and People of the Diocese
We wish to emphasize:
1. That the documents and our conversation with Bishop Vann solely ever
represented the four priests named.
2. In retrospect, we regret our choice of timing for starting these
conversations.
3. We deeply regret the phraseology of the
document which has caused hurt and division.
4. We remain fully committed to the goal of this Diocese, as plainly
stated by Bishop Iker, to realign with an Orthodox Anglican Province.
Respectfully submitted,
The Very Rev. William A Crary, Jr.
The Rev. Canon Charles A. Hough, III
The Very Rev. Christopher C. Stainbrook
The Rev. Louis L. Tobola, Jr.
The negative reaction from the people of the diocese must have been beyond enormous to cause the bishop to demand this public a retraction and have it issued at 9:42 p.m. on a Saturday night. But after all, what are four longtime friends when it comes to saving face?
---------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 9:42 PM
Cc: Bishop Iker
Subject: Ad Clerum: Statement
To the clergy,
The following statement has been released jointly by Canon Charles Hough, Fr. William Crary, Fr. Christopher Stainbrook, and Fr. Louis Tobola in reference to the document released earlier this week concerning a June meeting between them and Bishop Kevin Vann.
Bishop Iker and the Standing Committee have asked that it be conveyed to you via Ad Clerum. It will be sent to all convention delegates and alternates as well.
Suzanne Gill
+++++
From: Fathers Crary, Hough, Stainbrook, and Tobola
Date: August 16, 2008
To: The Clergy and People of the Diocese
We wish to emphasize:
1. That the documents and our conversation with Bishop Vann solely ever
represented the four priests named.
2. In retrospect, we regret our choice of timing for starting these
conversations.
3. We deeply regret the phraseology of the
document which has caused hurt and division.
4. We remain fully committed to the goal of this Diocese, as plainly
stated by Bishop Iker, to realign with an Orthodox Anglican Province.
Respectfully submitted,
The Very Rev. William A Crary, Jr.
The Rev. Canon Charles A. Hough, III
The Very Rev. Christopher C. Stainbrook
The Rev. Louis L. Tobola, Jr.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Renouncing the quest for the Holy Grail
From the the Daily Episcopalian on Episcopal Cafe. Reprinted with permission
By George Clifford
Now is the time to bury the ancient shibboleth of Anglican – Roman Catholic unity permanently.
Reunification with the Church of Rome offers much to the Anglican Communion that is admittedly very attractive:
• Anglicanism traces its historical roots back to Jesus through the Roman Church;
• Unmatched global reach and influence;
• Liturgical forms and ecclesiastical traditions similar to Anglicanism.
Most importantly, scripture and theology exhort us to unity within the body of Christ. The Anglican Communion could take no greater step towards achieving that unity than reunification with Rome, whether reunification took the form of reincorporating Anglican Churches into the Roman Catholic Church or a form similar to the Episcopal-Evangelical Lutheran concordat on intercommunion and sharing of ministries.
However, the Church of Rome, confident that its leader, the successor to Peter, holds the keys to the kingdom, steadfastly insists that unity is possible only on its terms. That insistence has stalled reunification with the Orthodox Churches for centuries. I find many of Rome’s terms unacceptable and strongly suspect that a majority of Anglicans do as well. Six of the most objectionable aspects of any possible reunification include:
• Acknowledging papal primacy and authority, sharply departing from the historic Anglican policy of collective authority, e.g., the Archbishop of Canterbury is first among equals in gatherings of Anglican bishops or primates;
• Honoring papal infallibility, extending even to doctrines not explicitly rooted in Scripture, e.g., the Immaculate Conception and bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• Excluding Christians not in communion with Rome from receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion, implicitly conferring upon those Christians a second-class status within the body of Christ;
• Complying with the extensive corpus of Roman canon law, often substituting law for grace, e.g., in requiring annulment of a marriage before remarriage instead of emphasizing concern for healing and readiness for remarriage;
• Insisting on doctrinal and theological conformity instead of Anglican ambiguity, e.g., solving what Anglicans have left as the sure but mysterious working of grace in the Eucharist by mandating belief in transubstantiation;
• Substituting definitive ethical positions on a wide variety of issues, ranging from abortion to suicide, for the Anglican practice of an individual to follow his or her own conscience.What would happen on other, important issues is unclear. For example, some rites within the Church of Rome, in contrast to the Roman rite, permit married priests (ecclesiastical discipline rather than theology gives the Roman Catholic Church its clerical celibacy). Would Anglicans have their own rite? Would a similar permission to marry extend to Anglican priests? Would Rome allow married Anglican bishops?
Recent, heavy-handed efforts by the Roman Catholic Church to influence the Church of England and the Anglican Communion emphasize the problems that reunification poses. In response to the Church of England’s 2008 General Synod voting to move forward with the ordination of women bishops, Rome communicated that this step would interpose an obstacle to reunification. Gender does not determine one’s identity as a child of God. Women deacons, priests, and bishops have given wonderful gifts and ministries to those Anglican provinces that ordain women.
Rome’s informal communiqué suggests that Rome envisions the possibility of reunification with Anglicans by excluding provinces that ordain women or insisting that those women renounce the practice.
I, and probably most in the Episcopal Church, cannot imagine renouncing women clergy.
Sentiment in the House of Bishops at the 2006 General Convention was that the Holy Spirit had clearly acted in the election of Bishop Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop. Have we in the Episcopal Church lived in apostasy since her installation? Do women bishops ordain inauthentic clergy? Do women priests administer invalid sacraments? We can only answer those questions with a resounding NO.
Before and during the 2008 Lambeth Conference, Roman Catholic leaders pointedly noted that any steps towards further acceptance of homosexual relationships or sex within the Anglican Communion would severely jeopardize ecumenical talks with Rome. That public message represents uninvited interference in the Anglican Communion’s internal affairs and an attempt to stifle healthy debate about the morality of human sexuality. The Episcopal Church required eighteen hundred years to affirm that slavery and Christianity are inherently incompatible.
Similarly, the Episcopal Church required almost two thousands years to recognize the incompatibility of misogyny with Christianity. Part of the difficulty in our reaching both conclusions is the Bible’s conflicted witness, e.g., a prima facie reading of Scripture grants parents permission to sell a daughter into slavery and instructs us that only men should speak in church. Sadly, correctly discerning the mind of Christ often entails much controversy, conflict, and time. Stifling that discernment process – regardless of one’s views about the morality of homosexual sex and relationships – does nothing to clarify the mind of Christ.
When convenient, the Church of Rome ignores the reality that the papacy has repeatedly asserted that Anglican holy orders are invalid. No greater obstacle to reunification can exist. The rest of us need to recognize that Roman talk of Anglican actions creating additional barriers to reunification means nothing as long as Rome denies the validity of Anglican orders. I, for one, am neither willing to deny my priesthood nor to exchange my freedom of thought, the ministry of ordained women, and Anglican distinctives in order to become a Roman Catholic. Carefully considered, the “holy grail” of reunification with Rome, something that will happen only on Rome’s terms, is a cup of hemlock. Any Anglican who wishes to become part of the Roman Catholic Church can do so today by averring belief in Roman Catholic doctrine and receiving the sacrament of confirmation from a Roman bishop. To those who feel God calling them to make their faith journey in the Church of Rome, I offer my heartfelt best wishes and blessing.
Anglicanism is not, and does not claim to be, the only or even the right Church for everyone; the Roman Catholic Church is a valued and historic member of the Church universal.
However, burying the shibboleth of reunification of Rome will give remaining Anglicans the unfettered freedom to live out our identity as Anglican Christians. The Anglican Communion has much to offer the Church of Rome, including our emphases on inclusivity, pastoral care, and praying together without having to believe together. Compromising our distinctive identity as part of the body of Christ to achieve reunification or recognition by the Church of Rome as an authentic branch of the Body of Christ is too high a price to pay.
The Rev. George Clifford, a retired priest in the Diocese of North Carolina, served as a Navy chaplain for twenty-four years.
Now is the time to bury the ancient shibboleth of Anglican – Roman Catholic unity permanently.
Reunification with the Church of Rome offers much to the Anglican Communion that is admittedly very attractive:
• Anglicanism traces its historical roots back to Jesus through the Roman Church;
• Unmatched global reach and influence;
• Liturgical forms and ecclesiastical traditions similar to Anglicanism.
Most importantly, scripture and theology exhort us to unity within the body of Christ. The Anglican Communion could take no greater step towards achieving that unity than reunification with Rome, whether reunification took the form of reincorporating Anglican Churches into the Roman Catholic Church or a form similar to the Episcopal-Evangelical Lutheran concordat on intercommunion and sharing of ministries.
However, the Church of Rome, confident that its leader, the successor to Peter, holds the keys to the kingdom, steadfastly insists that unity is possible only on its terms. That insistence has stalled reunification with the Orthodox Churches for centuries. I find many of Rome’s terms unacceptable and strongly suspect that a majority of Anglicans do as well. Six of the most objectionable aspects of any possible reunification include:
• Acknowledging papal primacy and authority, sharply departing from the historic Anglican policy of collective authority, e.g., the Archbishop of Canterbury is first among equals in gatherings of Anglican bishops or primates;
• Honoring papal infallibility, extending even to doctrines not explicitly rooted in Scripture, e.g., the Immaculate Conception and bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
• Excluding Christians not in communion with Rome from receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion, implicitly conferring upon those Christians a second-class status within the body of Christ;
• Complying with the extensive corpus of Roman canon law, often substituting law for grace, e.g., in requiring annulment of a marriage before remarriage instead of emphasizing concern for healing and readiness for remarriage;
• Insisting on doctrinal and theological conformity instead of Anglican ambiguity, e.g., solving what Anglicans have left as the sure but mysterious working of grace in the Eucharist by mandating belief in transubstantiation;
• Substituting definitive ethical positions on a wide variety of issues, ranging from abortion to suicide, for the Anglican practice of an individual to follow his or her own conscience.What would happen on other, important issues is unclear. For example, some rites within the Church of Rome, in contrast to the Roman rite, permit married priests (ecclesiastical discipline rather than theology gives the Roman Catholic Church its clerical celibacy). Would Anglicans have their own rite? Would a similar permission to marry extend to Anglican priests? Would Rome allow married Anglican bishops?
Recent, heavy-handed efforts by the Roman Catholic Church to influence the Church of England and the Anglican Communion emphasize the problems that reunification poses. In response to the Church of England’s 2008 General Synod voting to move forward with the ordination of women bishops, Rome communicated that this step would interpose an obstacle to reunification. Gender does not determine one’s identity as a child of God. Women deacons, priests, and bishops have given wonderful gifts and ministries to those Anglican provinces that ordain women.
Rome’s informal communiqué suggests that Rome envisions the possibility of reunification with Anglicans by excluding provinces that ordain women or insisting that those women renounce the practice.
I, and probably most in the Episcopal Church, cannot imagine renouncing women clergy.
Sentiment in the House of Bishops at the 2006 General Convention was that the Holy Spirit had clearly acted in the election of Bishop Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop. Have we in the Episcopal Church lived in apostasy since her installation? Do women bishops ordain inauthentic clergy? Do women priests administer invalid sacraments? We can only answer those questions with a resounding NO.
Before and during the 2008 Lambeth Conference, Roman Catholic leaders pointedly noted that any steps towards further acceptance of homosexual relationships or sex within the Anglican Communion would severely jeopardize ecumenical talks with Rome. That public message represents uninvited interference in the Anglican Communion’s internal affairs and an attempt to stifle healthy debate about the morality of human sexuality. The Episcopal Church required eighteen hundred years to affirm that slavery and Christianity are inherently incompatible.
Similarly, the Episcopal Church required almost two thousands years to recognize the incompatibility of misogyny with Christianity. Part of the difficulty in our reaching both conclusions is the Bible’s conflicted witness, e.g., a prima facie reading of Scripture grants parents permission to sell a daughter into slavery and instructs us that only men should speak in church. Sadly, correctly discerning the mind of Christ often entails much controversy, conflict, and time. Stifling that discernment process – regardless of one’s views about the morality of homosexual sex and relationships – does nothing to clarify the mind of Christ.
When convenient, the Church of Rome ignores the reality that the papacy has repeatedly asserted that Anglican holy orders are invalid. No greater obstacle to reunification can exist. The rest of us need to recognize that Roman talk of Anglican actions creating additional barriers to reunification means nothing as long as Rome denies the validity of Anglican orders. I, for one, am neither willing to deny my priesthood nor to exchange my freedom of thought, the ministry of ordained women, and Anglican distinctives in order to become a Roman Catholic. Carefully considered, the “holy grail” of reunification with Rome, something that will happen only on Rome’s terms, is a cup of hemlock. Any Anglican who wishes to become part of the Roman Catholic Church can do so today by averring belief in Roman Catholic doctrine and receiving the sacrament of confirmation from a Roman bishop. To those who feel God calling them to make their faith journey in the Church of Rome, I offer my heartfelt best wishes and blessing.
Anglicanism is not, and does not claim to be, the only or even the right Church for everyone; the Roman Catholic Church is a valued and historic member of the Church universal.
However, burying the shibboleth of reunification of Rome will give remaining Anglicans the unfettered freedom to live out our identity as Anglican Christians. The Anglican Communion has much to offer the Church of Rome, including our emphases on inclusivity, pastoral care, and praying together without having to believe together. Compromising our distinctive identity as part of the body of Christ to achieve reunification or recognition by the Church of Rome as an authentic branch of the Body of Christ is too high a price to pay.
The Rev. George Clifford, a retired priest in the Diocese of North Carolina, served as a Navy chaplain for twenty-four years.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Jim Naughton in "The Guardian"
The archbishop's hands are tied, not ours . The politics of the church make Rowan Williams act against his beliefs on gay marriage. We don't have to do the same.
By Jim Naughton
Research has proven that I am not the Archbishop of Canterbury. Neither, in all likelihood, are you. These facts, in hand for some time now, acquired new significance yesterday with the revelation that Rowan Williams, who is the Archbishop of Canterbury, believes, what a great many Anglicans believe, namely: "that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might ... reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness."
This is Rowan Williams, who is the Archbishop of Canterbury
This is Jim Naughton, who is not the Archbishop of Canterbury
As archbishop, Williams might feel that the proper execution of his office requires that he puts aside his personal convictions. Juggling numerous concerns and multiple constituencies, he may have reason not to speak out boldly on behalf of one marginalised audience for fear of alienating another. Equipped with a variety of subtle ways to move the Anglican Communion toward a fuller understanding of human sexuality, he can initiate imperceptible advances on one front while publicly taking a hard line on the other. There are wheels within wheels, and he can make them all spin. He is the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But I am not. And neither are you. We can either speak our truth - which as it turns out is also his truth (and more important, we believe, His truth) and organize ourselves to reform the Churches we love, or we can sit back, beg our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to be patient, and hope that somehow the Communion will arrive at a new consensus on homosexuality without anyone seeming to have so much as nudged it in that direction.
READ IT ALL IN The Guardian.
By Jim Naughton
Research has proven that I am not the Archbishop of Canterbury. Neither, in all likelihood, are you. These facts, in hand for some time now, acquired new significance yesterday with the revelation that Rowan Williams, who is the Archbishop of Canterbury, believes, what a great many Anglicans believe, namely: "that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might ... reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness."
This is Rowan Williams, who is the Archbishop of Canterbury
This is Jim Naughton, who is not the Archbishop of Canterbury
As archbishop, Williams might feel that the proper execution of his office requires that he puts aside his personal convictions. Juggling numerous concerns and multiple constituencies, he may have reason not to speak out boldly on behalf of one marginalised audience for fear of alienating another. Equipped with a variety of subtle ways to move the Anglican Communion toward a fuller understanding of human sexuality, he can initiate imperceptible advances on one front while publicly taking a hard line on the other. There are wheels within wheels, and he can make them all spin. He is the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But I am not. And neither are you. We can either speak our truth - which as it turns out is also his truth (and more important, we believe, His truth) and organize ourselves to reform the Churches we love, or we can sit back, beg our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to be patient, and hope that somehow the Communion will arrive at a new consensus on homosexuality without anyone seeming to have so much as nudged it in that direction.
READ IT ALL IN The Guardian.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Investigating Right-Wing Strategies
Press Release:
PRA Launches Research on Attacks on Mainline Denominations
Challenges to LGBT programs and policies a key focus
PRA Launches Research on Attacks on Mainline Denominations
Challenges to LGBT programs and policies a key focus
This month, Political Research Associates launched an investigation into right-wing efforts to destabilize mainline Protestant denominations and their LGBT rights programs and policies with the hiring of Project Director Kapya John Kaoma.
Over the past several decades, mainline Christian denominations in the U.S. have faced relentless pressure from conservatives both inside and outside their churches to abandon the tradition of social witness. In recent years, such campaigns have seized on the issues of marriage equality and ordination of gay and lesbian clergy, embroiling many local churches and even international church bodies in the controversies. Among other effects, such campaigns have weakened the socially progressive role of mainline denominations in public life. Political Research Associates' new program will investigate the leading strategies being employed by right-wing groups to destabilize the progressive LGBT programs of mainline denominations.
"PRA has tracked the efforts of such right-wing organizations as the IRD for years. Our quarterly The Public Eye has published key research on the subject," says PRA President Katherine Hancock Ragsdale. "So we are thrilled the Arcus Foundation has given us the resources to take our investigations even further, and further support those within the Episcopal, Methodist and other churches who are defending equity."
Project Director Kapya Kaoma is an ordained Anglican priest with a particular interest in social justice issues, ecological ethics and interfaith work. From 1998-2001 he served as the Dean of St. John's Cathedral and lecturer at the University of Africa in Zimbabwe, where is coauthored a class ethics text, "Unity in Diversity." From 2001- 2002 he was Academic Dean for St. John's Anglican Seminary in Zambia where he launched a Women Studies program, and the Church School training program.An active campaigner for women's reproductive rights, Kaoma theologically argues for the promotion of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS. He received the Boston Theological Institute "Costas" Ecumenical Student Consultation Award from 2003-2005. A doctoral candidate at the Boston University School of Theology, he received its African Studies Merit Fellowship Awards four years in a row from 2004-2008.
Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank that studies the U.S. Right and is the publisher of the quarterly The Public Eye, and the website Right Web. Its previous articles about the IRD and attacks on mainline denominations can be found at
The Roman Option
Fort Worth Episcopalian David Leedy is working on a history of the diocese. In his research, he came across these interesting pieces and posted them on the Fort Worth Via Media listserve. The articles add some background information to the presentation four of our clergy made to the Roman Catholic bishop of Fort Worth. See blog below: So. How do you feel about being Roman Catholic? posted on Monday, August 11, 2008
-----------------------------
Excerpt From:
September 17, 1991 – Episcopal News Service (ENS)
The 150-member Church of St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington, Texas, voted nearly unanimously on August 2 to sever ties with the Episcopal Church. "We were very disturbed by the outcome of the General Convention," said the Rev. Allan Hawkins, rector of the parish. "We were concerned about the church's inability to affirm traditional Christian morality."
Hawkins reported that the parish would seek affiliation with Rome under a provision approved by the Vatican in 1980 that permits individuals to move from Anglicanism to the Roman Catholic Church. The provision allows individuals to use a modified version of the Episcopal Church's 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
A handful of Episcopalians who have converted to Roman Catholicism have organized "Anglican Use" churches in San Antonio, Houston, and Austin. However, St. Mary's is the first Episcopal congregation in Texas to seek affiliation with Rome.
"There is no provision from a Roman Catholic point of view for a local congregation to negotiate its way into the Roman Catholic Church," said the Rev. William Norgren, ecumenical officer of the Episcopal Church. Norgren said that the "Anglican Use" provision was adopted to make individual converts from Anglicanism feel comfortable as Roman Catholics -- not as a tool to pave the way for entire parishes to leave the Episcopal Church and join the Roman Catholic Church.
Norgren suggested that there would "be no ecumenical problem" for incorporating the Episcopal parish into the Roman Catholic Church, if authorities in both churches agree. However, he said that the Roman Catholics would likely require a pastoral meeting with each parishioner to determine that he or she was prepared -- as well as willing -- to accept Roman Catholicism.
In a statement responding to the action of the parish, Bishop Clarence Pope of Fort Worth indicated that he would not stand in the way of the parish's decision to leave the Episcopal Church. Pope is president of the Episcopal Synod of America, an organization of traditionalist Episcopalians that opposes what it perceives as liberal trends in the church.
Although a decision on the parish's relationship to the Diocese of Fort Worth would not be determined until the diocesan convention in October, it appears that Pope will not fight St. Mary's over control of its church property. "My concern is for the care of the souls of the members of St. Mary's, and not for their property," Pope said.
----------------------
The path they faced in trying to find a way to join the Church as distinct groups and to preserve their liturgical heritage is both discouraging and highly familiar to traditionalists. At first, they received a warm welcome from Cardinal Hume, and an even warmer welcome in Rome (where their biggest ally was, surprise, surprise, Cardinal Ratzinger). Their ideal goal was an Anglican rite personal prelature. But they quickly realized that this was a non-starter, so they started negotiating for a lesser aim: a canonical structure that would allow them to be catechized and join the Church together, and to continue to worship together after they had joined. (I will come back to the details of this later) Rome was keen for this, and Hume was initially willing. But the English Catholic bishops, egged on by liberals and feminists in the Church who did not want to see 1,000 priests and 50,000 laity loyal to Rome and against women priests enter the Church, balked.
What the English Bishops eventually produced was a very watered down statement saying that parishes or groups could join together, but once received they would be absorbed into the mainstream church. The hope of staying together as parishes or keeping elements of Anglican liturgy was more or less crushed. It was join Father Flippant at St. Teilhard de Chardin's for the Novus Ordo, or nothing.
Some U.S. bishops, led by Cardinal Law, were more keen and were promoting a wider expansion of the "pastoral provision", by which a few Anglican parishes, mostly in Texas, had already been received into the Church. Rome tried to push for a more generous settlement in both the US and the UK, but it came to nothing.
Some of the individual stories are shocking. One key player in the negotiations was Episcopalian Bishop Clarence Pope of Fort Worth, Texas. He tried to negotiate for a personal prelature, or some form of nationwide, expanded pastoral provision, with the help of Cardinal Law. They had a meeting in Rome with key Cardinals, which concluded with a dramatic meeting where Pope John Paul II embraced Bishop Pope and gestured towards him saying, "in communion." But when they went back home, nothing happened.
Finally, the ailing Bishop Pope announced his retirement as Anglican bishop, and that he couldn't wait any longer and wished to come into the Church as an individual. On retirement, he moved to the diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The bishop of Baton Rouge had said that he would happily reordain Bishop Pope as a priest. But having said this, the bishop then said that he would first... (wait for this) put it to a vote of the diocesan priests council. Guess what? They voted against allowing an Anglican bishop, involved in direct negotiations with the Pope and Cardinals Law and Ratzinger, to become an ordinary priest. Pope was completely isolated from the Catholic community in Baton Rouge, and was left in the dark as to what was happening at the national and international level (after all, he was just a retired layman now). Old and sick, he started getting calls from the Episcopalian primate and the new Episcopal Bishop of Fort Worth to return to the Episcopal Church to the dignity of being a retired bishop. He did, thanks to the petty jealousies and heartlessness of a small bishop and his liberal priests.
In the end, thanks to a myriad of stumbling blocks on the Catholic side, and a more creative response on the Anglican side by giving the dissident parishes four bishops of their own and allowing them to opt out of the regular Church of England structure, the negotiations with Rome and Westminster came to nothing. Many individual priests and laity came over, but the prospect of a mass conversion of whole parishes flopped.
The similarities to the position of Roman rite traditionalists to the Anglo-Catholics discussed in Oddie's book were striking. How many times have we had friendly words or documents from Rome, only to be shot down by bishops? How many times have we heard initially positive responses from bishops, only to be shot down by a vote of the priests council? How many times have we had to endure insults that we are not really loyal to the Church because we want our own distinct liturgy?
It also makes me think that if Rome is too powerless to bring over an Anglican bishop who the Pope has said he is "in communion" with because of the Baton Rouge priests council, or unwilling to help bring over 200+ whole Anglican parishes, how much power will they have or energy will they spend to help us? We may have to come to the same sad lesson that most of the Anglo-Catholic dissidents still in the Church of England came to: the bishops and priests don't want us, and Rome is unwilling or unable to help us. Therefore, we have to help ourselves. The dissident Anglicans, with their own four bishops, are united through the Forward in Faith movement in the U.K. (and now in the U.S.as well) This will give them a powerful structure to negotiate with Rome as a bloc. Next time, it will take more than kind words from Cardinals: they will want it in writing.
Canon 372
Another very interesting point raised in the book was that after the initial pipe dream of a "personal prelature" like Opus Dei had been abandoned, was that the Anglo-Catholics started focusing on another provision in Canon Law, one which I have never heard of in traditionalist circles. This provision is known as Canon 372, which is part of the Canon Law governing the life of particular churches (usually meaning dioceses). Canon 372 states:
"Can. 372 §1 As a rule, that portion of the people of God which constitutes a diocese or other particular Church is to have a defined territory, so that it comprises all the faithful who live in that territory.
§2 If however, in the judgement of the supreme authority in the Church, after consultation with the Episcopal Conferences concerned, it is thought to be helpful, there may be established in a given territory particular Churches distinguished by the rite of the faithful or by some other similar quality."
This was the provision that the Anglo-Catholics were negotiating to have invoked, and the Vatican and Cardinal Hume were initially in favour of it. Such a particular church would have to be governed by a bishop, but we need not have our own bishop like a "personal prelature." An existing bishop could do the job, say the Cardinal responsible for the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
If and when the next conflict flares up in the Anglican Church (as is occurring right now over gay ordination, and will occur over women bishops in the UK) Anglo-Catholics seeking union with Rome, this time more powerfully organized, will lobby for Canon 372 to be put into effect.
I see no reason why this should not be our goal as traditional Catholics as well: a particular church "distinguished by the rite of the faithful" (i.e. the Tridentine rite) uniting all traditionalists world wide.
In the wake of Protocol 1411 and the divisions in the FSSP, the traditionalist movement needs to start moving forward with a positive agenda. I suggest that calling for a Tridentine particular church, under the terms of Canon 372, should be our goal. As much as possible we should work with like minded groups of Anglo-Catholics, either those groups already united with the Church who would like a stronger status to maintain their identity, or Forward-in-Faith or "continuing" Anglicans who would like to join the Catholic Church, but don't feel able to under the circumstances.
-----------------------------
Excerpt From:
September 17, 1991 – Episcopal News Service (ENS)
The 150-member Church of St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington, Texas, voted nearly unanimously on August 2 to sever ties with the Episcopal Church. "We were very disturbed by the outcome of the General Convention," said the Rev. Allan Hawkins, rector of the parish. "We were concerned about the church's inability to affirm traditional Christian morality."
Hawkins reported that the parish would seek affiliation with Rome under a provision approved by the Vatican in 1980 that permits individuals to move from Anglicanism to the Roman Catholic Church. The provision allows individuals to use a modified version of the Episcopal Church's 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
A handful of Episcopalians who have converted to Roman Catholicism have organized "Anglican Use" churches in San Antonio, Houston, and Austin. However, St. Mary's is the first Episcopal congregation in Texas to seek affiliation with Rome.
"There is no provision from a Roman Catholic point of view for a local congregation to negotiate its way into the Roman Catholic Church," said the Rev. William Norgren, ecumenical officer of the Episcopal Church. Norgren said that the "Anglican Use" provision was adopted to make individual converts from Anglicanism feel comfortable as Roman Catholics -- not as a tool to pave the way for entire parishes to leave the Episcopal Church and join the Roman Catholic Church.
Norgren suggested that there would "be no ecumenical problem" for incorporating the Episcopal parish into the Roman Catholic Church, if authorities in both churches agree. However, he said that the Roman Catholics would likely require a pastoral meeting with each parishioner to determine that he or she was prepared -- as well as willing -- to accept Roman Catholicism.
In a statement responding to the action of the parish, Bishop Clarence Pope of Fort Worth indicated that he would not stand in the way of the parish's decision to leave the Episcopal Church. Pope is president of the Episcopal Synod of America, an organization of traditionalist Episcopalians that opposes what it perceives as liberal trends in the church.
Although a decision on the parish's relationship to the Diocese of Fort Worth would not be determined until the diocesan convention in October, it appears that Pope will not fight St. Mary's over control of its church property. "My concern is for the care of the souls of the members of St. Mary's, and not for their property," Pope said.
----------------------
[Undated] The Roman Option commentary and proposal by Mark Cameron
[You can read it here. From their website: The Una Voce International website provides information about officers and national associations: http://www.ifuv.org/]
From Una Voce (from the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity (with one voice) is an international federation of associations, founded in 1966 in Rome, that now includes national associations in 17 nations on every continent. It is dedicated to ensuring that the Roman Mass codified by St. Pius V is maintained as one of the forms of eucharistic worship which are honored in universal liturgical life, and to restoring the use of Latin, Gregorian Chant, and sacred polyphony in Catholic liturgy.
I recently read (almost at a sitting actually as I found it quite gripping) William Oddie's The Roman Option (New York: Harper Collins, 1997), the story of the entry of Anglo-Catholic dissidents into the Catholic Church in the UK, and to a lesser extent the US, after the decision of the Church of England to "ordain" women. I think there are many lessons in this book which are relevant to traditionalist Catholics, especially when it comes to tactics on how to carve out our own distinct but integral place in the Church.
The path they faced in trying to find a way to join the Church as distinct groups and to preserve their liturgical heritage is both discouraging and highly familiar to traditionalists. At first, they received a warm welcome from Cardinal Hume, and an even warmer welcome in Rome (where their biggest ally was, surprise, surprise, Cardinal Ratzinger). Their ideal goal was an Anglican rite personal prelature. But they quickly realized that this was a non-starter, so they started negotiating for a lesser aim: a canonical structure that would allow them to be catechized and join the Church together, and to continue to worship together after they had joined. (I will come back to the details of this later) Rome was keen for this, and Hume was initially willing. But the English Catholic bishops, egged on by liberals and feminists in the Church who did not want to see 1,000 priests and 50,000 laity loyal to Rome and against women priests enter the Church, balked.
What the English Bishops eventually produced was a very watered down statement saying that parishes or groups could join together, but once received they would be absorbed into the mainstream church. The hope of staying together as parishes or keeping elements of Anglican liturgy was more or less crushed. It was join Father Flippant at St. Teilhard de Chardin's for the Novus Ordo, or nothing.
Some U.S. bishops, led by Cardinal Law, were more keen and were promoting a wider expansion of the "pastoral provision", by which a few Anglican parishes, mostly in Texas, had already been received into the Church. Rome tried to push for a more generous settlement in both the US and the UK, but it came to nothing.
Some of the individual stories are shocking. One key player in the negotiations was Episcopalian Bishop Clarence Pope of Fort Worth, Texas. He tried to negotiate for a personal prelature, or some form of nationwide, expanded pastoral provision, with the help of Cardinal Law. They had a meeting in Rome with key Cardinals, which concluded with a dramatic meeting where Pope John Paul II embraced Bishop Pope and gestured towards him saying, "in communion." But when they went back home, nothing happened.
Finally, the ailing Bishop Pope announced his retirement as Anglican bishop, and that he couldn't wait any longer and wished to come into the Church as an individual. On retirement, he moved to the diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The bishop of Baton Rouge had said that he would happily reordain Bishop Pope as a priest. But having said this, the bishop then said that he would first... (wait for this) put it to a vote of the diocesan priests council. Guess what? They voted against allowing an Anglican bishop, involved in direct negotiations with the Pope and Cardinals Law and Ratzinger, to become an ordinary priest. Pope was completely isolated from the Catholic community in Baton Rouge, and was left in the dark as to what was happening at the national and international level (after all, he was just a retired layman now). Old and sick, he started getting calls from the Episcopalian primate and the new Episcopal Bishop of Fort Worth to return to the Episcopal Church to the dignity of being a retired bishop. He did, thanks to the petty jealousies and heartlessness of a small bishop and his liberal priests.
In the end, thanks to a myriad of stumbling blocks on the Catholic side, and a more creative response on the Anglican side by giving the dissident parishes four bishops of their own and allowing them to opt out of the regular Church of England structure, the negotiations with Rome and Westminster came to nothing. Many individual priests and laity came over, but the prospect of a mass conversion of whole parishes flopped.
The similarities to the position of Roman rite traditionalists to the Anglo-Catholics discussed in Oddie's book were striking. How many times have we had friendly words or documents from Rome, only to be shot down by bishops? How many times have we heard initially positive responses from bishops, only to be shot down by a vote of the priests council? How many times have we had to endure insults that we are not really loyal to the Church because we want our own distinct liturgy?
It also makes me think that if Rome is too powerless to bring over an Anglican bishop who the Pope has said he is "in communion" with because of the Baton Rouge priests council, or unwilling to help bring over 200+ whole Anglican parishes, how much power will they have or energy will they spend to help us? We may have to come to the same sad lesson that most of the Anglo-Catholic dissidents still in the Church of England came to: the bishops and priests don't want us, and Rome is unwilling or unable to help us. Therefore, we have to help ourselves. The dissident Anglicans, with their own four bishops, are united through the Forward in Faith movement in the U.K. (and now in the U.S.as well) This will give them a powerful structure to negotiate with Rome as a bloc. Next time, it will take more than kind words from Cardinals: they will want it in writing.
Canon 372
Another very interesting point raised in the book was that after the initial pipe dream of a "personal prelature" like Opus Dei had been abandoned, was that the Anglo-Catholics started focusing on another provision in Canon Law, one which I have never heard of in traditionalist circles. This provision is known as Canon 372, which is part of the Canon Law governing the life of particular churches (usually meaning dioceses). Canon 372 states:
"Can. 372 §1 As a rule, that portion of the people of God which constitutes a diocese or other particular Church is to have a defined territory, so that it comprises all the faithful who live in that territory.
§2 If however, in the judgement of the supreme authority in the Church, after consultation with the Episcopal Conferences concerned, it is thought to be helpful, there may be established in a given territory particular Churches distinguished by the rite of the faithful or by some other similar quality."
This was the provision that the Anglo-Catholics were negotiating to have invoked, and the Vatican and Cardinal Hume were initially in favour of it. Such a particular church would have to be governed by a bishop, but we need not have our own bishop like a "personal prelature." An existing bishop could do the job, say the Cardinal responsible for the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
If and when the next conflict flares up in the Anglican Church (as is occurring right now over gay ordination, and will occur over women bishops in the UK) Anglo-Catholics seeking union with Rome, this time more powerfully organized, will lobby for Canon 372 to be put into effect.
I see no reason why this should not be our goal as traditional Catholics as well: a particular church "distinguished by the rite of the faithful" (i.e. the Tridentine rite) uniting all traditionalists world wide.
In the wake of Protocol 1411 and the divisions in the FSSP, the traditionalist movement needs to start moving forward with a positive agenda. I suggest that calling for a Tridentine particular church, under the terms of Canon 372, should be our goal. As much as possible we should work with like minded groups of Anglo-Catholics, either those groups already united with the Church who would like a stronger status to maintain their identity, or Forward-in-Faith or "continuing" Anglicans who would like to join the Catholic Church, but don't feel able to under the circumstances.
Monday, August 11, 2008
UPDATED! So. How do you feel about being Roman Catholic?
SEE STATEMENT BY BISHOP IKER AT END OF THIS BLOG.
And see the bridge in this photo? If you buy Bp. Iker's statement, I'd like to sell it to you . . .
This document was put into the hands of the Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians by a source who came by it legitimately. I have reproduced it exactly as I received it.
It is authentic. See this story in the Dallas Morning News. And this story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
-------------------------------------
EIGHT CRUCIAL FINDINGS
1. We believe the See of Peter is essential not optional - Fr. Stainbrook
2. We believe a magisterium is needed desperately - Fr. Crary
3. We believe the Catholic Faith is true - Fr. Stainbrook
4. We believe the Anglican Communion shares the fatal flaws of TEC- Fr. Tobola
5. We believe our polity is in error-Fr. Crary
6. We believe we are not the only ones in our diocese - Canon Hough
7. We believe Pope Benedict XVI understands our plight - Fr. Tobola
8. We believe there is a charism which Anglican ethos has to offer to the Universal Church-Fr. Stainbrook
-----------------------
PREAMBLE - Fr. Crary
A. We appreciate your taking this time to meet with us.
B. Introduction of group by Fr. Crary. Fr. Crary introduces himself and then the group.
C. History: Our group met several times (with our Bishop's knowledge) for the past year and a half. Out meetings arose because of the on going crisis in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
D. We shared our conclusions with Bishop Iker on April 10th of this year. He gave us his "unequivocally support" to proceed further by having this conversation with you.
E. We would like to share briefly with you our journey and our conclusions which we shared with Bishop Iker.
F. However, before we share our thoughts we would like to present you with this icon which was commissioned expressly for you and for our meeting today.
------------------------
PROPOSAL
We request that the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth provide the guidance necessary so that we might "make a proposal" that would lead our Diocese into full communion with the See of Peter.
We believe this guidance is necessary for the following reasons:
1. We cannot adequately prepare such a proposal without input from those to whom the proposal is to be made.
2. Such guidance would help us through the complicated aspects of this proposal.
3. With this guidance, the Holy Spirit could affect more quickly the healing of this portion of the broken Body of Christ.
Should you consent, we gladly offer ourselves for this important work and stand ready to work with those you might designate.
-------------------------
A Presentation to
The Most Reverend Keven W. Vann
Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth
Given by
Members of the Clergy of
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
----------------------
That they all may be one;
even as thou, Father, are in me
and I in thee
John 17:21
-----------------------
PREAMBLE
At 3:00 p.m. on Monday, June 16, 2008 in the Catholic Center of the Diocese of Fort Worth, four priests of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth made the following presentation to the Most Reverend Kevin Vann. We are grateful for the hospitality and charity which we received from the Bishop and his Chancellor, the Very Reverend James E. Hart.
The presentation was the result of two years of prayer and discernment regarding the future of our Diocese. At the conclusion of our discernment period, we shared our Findings with our Bishop, the Right Reverend Jack Leo Iker. Bishop Iker endorsed our report and gave us his "unequivocal support" to proceed with a presentation to Bishop Vann.
The clergy making this presentation are:
The Very Reverend William A. Crary, Jr., SSC, a founding priest of the Diocese with 32 years of experience in the Diocese, a member of the SSC (Society of the Holy Cross), Dean of the Eastern Deanery, and is the senior rector in the Diocese, serving St. Laurence for 22 years.
The Reverend Canon Charles A. Hough, III, SSC, a founding priest of the Diocese with 30 years experience in the Diocese, Canon to Bishop Iker for 15 years, a member of the SSC, Chair of our Diocesan Deputation to the General Convention of The Episcopal Church for 23 years, has served parishes in Granbury and Grand Prairie.
The Reverend Louis L. Tobola, Jr., SSC, a founding priest of the Diocese with 31 years experience in the Diocese, a member of the SSC, a founding priest for a new congregation in the Diocese, St. Barnabas the Apostle, has served as Dean of the Cathedral and Dean of the Eastern Deanery.
The Very Reverend Christopher C. Stainbrook, SSC, came to Fort Worth from New York in 1990 by invitation of Bp. Pope, has been Vicar of St. Timothy's since 1994, is Finance Committee Chair, Diocesan Historiographer, Dean of the Fort Worth East Deanery, and Special Liaison to the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth.
Before their presentation, a hand-written icon of Saint Gregory and Saint Augustine, commissioned expressly for Bishop Vann and this meeting, was given to him.
[Here a photo of the icon was reproduced.]
-------------------------
EIGHT CRUCIAL FINDINGS
I. We believe the See of Peter is essential not optional
Unity with the Holy See is esse that is, essential for Catholic Christians (not bene esse, merely beneficial.) This is a concept which the Catholic Clergy in the Anglican Tradition have always believed (indeed it is one of the stated purposes of the SSC) but the rapid deterioration of the Anglican Communion makes it even more apparent now. The Prayer for Unity (John 17, that they all may be one) also compels us to pursue the possibility of reunion with Rome.
The very name of the first Pope, Peter, Petrus is the "rock" - and we have seen that it is the Petrine office which is important not the personality of an individual pontiff.
In April 2006 our Diocesan Bishop and several of the clergy made a pilgrimage to Rome. At that time we were blessed to have an informal visit with his Eminence, Bernard Cardinal Law. At that meeting, Cardinal Law indicated that the Catholic Church was aware of the current difficulties faced by Anglo Catholics (and particularly the Anglo Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth) at this time and said, in essence, for us to "make an offer" that is, make a Proposal on how we might respond to the crisis in our branch of Christendom. After this pilgrimage, we began meeting with the full knowledge and support of our Bishop. We came to realize that, like the Prodigal Son in the Gospel, it is up to us to make the initiative to return to the rock from whence we were hewn. In essence, that trip crystallized for us the need for perusing unity with the See of Peter now. Since that time we have studied, we have met, we have prayed, and now we come to the Church with our conclusions.
As Anglicans we realize that Henry VIII, the monarch who wrote "Defense of Seven Sacraments" and who was granted the title "Defender of the Faith", never intended to make any substantive or permanent changes in the Catholic faith. Indeed, the Reformation itself was intended to be for a limited time only, "a season", as the book of Ecclesiastes would say.
We believe that it is now time for a new Season. It is perhaps, time for a church of Reformation to die and a new unification among Christ's people be born: Unification possible only under the Holy Father.
II. We believe a magisterium is needed desperately
"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 21:25) This describes the day to day 'on the ground" reality in the Anglican Communion. Anglican "comprehensiveness" has no boundaries and no real center. For example, during the Reformation period under Elizabeth I, 1533-1603, there was an attempt to synthesize the Catholic and Protestant factions in the Church of England, resulting in the so-called "Elizabethan Settlement". Concerning the Eucharist, it was held that belief in the Real Presence of Christ was acceptable as well as the belief that the Eucharist was only a memorial or "remembrance" of something long ago. In essence the Anglican faith is what the parish priest says it is, and this varies widely with many contradictions. The Pentecostal/Evangelical/Charismatic expressions are just as valid as the Anglo-Catholic teaching. In most parts of the country, the parish priest is completely on his own.
Formerly, a single prayer book (the 1662 Church of England Prayer Book was the pattern for all national prayer books) provided some glue, but with the proliferation of endless trial liturgies even that has disappeared.
The lack of a teaching office has resulted in communicating un-baptized persons, same-sex unions and liturgical chaos everywhere. There are no boundaries and it is all uncontrollable. This is not theory but day to day reality. Anglican "comprehensiveness" has no boundaries. Previously this absence of a center seemed to work when the various ecclesiastical parties (Low Church/Broad Church/High Church) largely worked within their own circles. Low Church people did not attend High Church parishes and vice versa.
In looking at the disarray in the larger communion it is apparent that the Archbishop of Canterbury is incapable of providing decisive leadership. If there is a future, particularly for Catholic minded Anglicans, it is clear that a magisterium is absolutely essential.
III. We believe the Catholic Faith is True
The Catholic Faith is given - it is true.
The Epistle to the Ephesians reminds us that as Christians we believe in "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism". At the celebration of every Mass and in the recitation of any Daily Office we profess in the Creed "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". We have come to realize, to an extent even more fully than we had as Catholics in the Anglican Tradition, that our Blessed Lord has indeed founded only one true church: the Catholic Church.
Unlike so many forms of Protestantism, Catholic teaching does not change on a whim to suit the transient issues of the day. In addition, the Catholic Faith is not just one option among many. Anglican comprehensiveness with Catholics, Evangelicals and Liberals, all following their own paths, leads to the disintegration and disunion which we in the Diocese of Fort Worth find ourselves. The Protestant/Low Church teachings, the Liberals experiential teachings are just not true. The Catholic faith, the Catholic practice, the Catholic teaching - is true.
We know, and are living examples of the fact, that Catholic Witness has been present throughout the history of the Anglican Tradition. But it is now becoming weaker because of this idea, Catholic as one option among several. . . except here in Fort Worth, which is in so many ways unique (explored further in section VI).
IV. We believe the Anglican Communion shares the fatal flaws of The Episcopal Church
In our time of discernment, we have concluded that the difficulties we have faced in The Episcopal Church for the past thirty years will not be remedied by the Anglican Communion.
Those making this presentation have been members of The Episcopal Church since childhood. In this church we have been nourished by Catholic faith and practice. However, through the years we have witnessed the deterioration and marginalization of that Catholic faith. We believed that our call was to remain within our church as a remnant which could preserve the faith. Our expectation was that the Anglican Communion, in response to The Episcopal Church's continuing "innovations", would provide the stability and witness necessary for us to continue. However, it is apparent that the Communion is incapable of providing this stability.
It is our conclusion that the Anglican Communion has the same fatal flaws as The Episcopal Church. Without a magisterium the latest "religion" will continue to replace the historic teachings of our Communion. This erosion of Catholic faith and practice is heightened by the governing polity of the Anglican Communion. Bishops are elected by priests and laity of a Diocese. As the liberalizing culture enters another portion of the world, the Diocese there is deeply affected by it. Those who can be elected are only those who reflect the cultural shift that has occurred in that Diocese. We have seen this in The Episcopal Church and we see it now in the Anglican Communion.
We know what happens in a church which lacks a magisterium and whose polity makes the continuing of a Catholic witness impossible. We have concluded the Anglican Communion provides not safe future for us. Our witness, rather than being honored, has been persecuted.
V. We believe our polity is in error
In the New Testament no congregation votes on its pastor! St. Paul would have been unelectable in all, except maybe Philippi! Without exception pastors are sent by higher authority.
It was not a convention of delegates, but only the remaining apostles that established the criteria for Judas' replacement. St. John Chrysostom said that Peter had the authority to make the appointment but did not. Drawing lots put the choice in God's hands.
In the United States, the democratic style of polity in The Episcopal Church, strongly resembling the legislative branch of the U.S. government (House of Bishops and House of Deputies, lay and ordained) has created doctrinal chaos. Samuel Seabury (1729-1796) the first American Episcopal bishop was fearful of having clergy and lay people voting on doctrinal matters. His fears were realized when an early General Convention put the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds up for grabs. The Nicene Creed was voted out, then back in; and then the Athanasian Creed lost the vote.
In regard to the ordination of women, the 1976 General Convention changed the matter of a sacrament, established by Christ himself, simply by voting. Bishop Robert Terwilliger, formerly Suffragan of the Diocese of Dallas called it "voting our collective ignorance"!
Candidates for bishop in the American Episcopal Church shamelessly campaign like the politicians they are. When elected they are indebted to the electors.
We are in desperate need of a polity modeled on the New Testament and the early church.
VI. We believe we are not the only ones
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth came into existence in 1983 when it was decided that the Diocese of Dallas, of which it represents the western 1/3 of that diocese, would divide. We believe the hand of God was present in this decision and that it was the work of the Holy Spirit to bring into existence a diocese where the overwhelming majority of clergy living and working in that part of the old Diocese of Dallas were Catholic minded clergy. We now see as truly profound this action of creating the Diocese of Fort Worth. It set up what has now culminated in a Diocese of the Episcopal Church where its clergy are overwhelmingly Catholic minded.
The Diocese of Fort Worth has been a leader in standing against the apostasy that has been taking place in the Episcopal Church over the last three decades. We have witnessed Episcopal diocese after diocese fall away from a traditional Biblical and Catholic practice of the faith. It has now become impossible for the Catholic minded people to exist and survive in the Episcopal Church. As a result of this, the Diocese of Fort Worth is working toward a realignment of itself into another Province of the Anglican Communion. We have chosen to join the Province of the Southern Cone in South America. We believe this arrangement is temporary. As the Anglican Communion attempts to reform itself, it is becoming more and more evident that this problematic at best.
The overwhelming majority of clergy currently active in the Diocese of Fort Worth are willing to work earnestly for what we consider to be the only solution, and that is full communion with the Holy See. The breakdown of numbers is as follows:
There are currently 60 active clergy
We believe 9 will opt to stay in The Episcopal Church
51 will remain in a temporarily realigned diocese with the Southern Cone
5 are not interested at this time in working for full communion
46 are truly interested. If we add our seminarians currently on the priesthood track and our retired clergy the number becomes 59.
Our best guess is that approximately 59 clergy are willing to pursue an active plan to bring the Diocese of Fort Worth or a significant portion of it into full communion with the Holy See, if this be God's will.
We believe these numbers are the result of the Holy Spirit actively working among us since the formation of this diocese. We also recognize that it will take time to bring the laity on board with this proposal. While the clergy have come to recognize the truth which it held by the Holy See, we have much work to do with the laity.
This fact needs to be noted and is to be understood as a recognized part of our proposal.
We would also like to point out that of the 59 clergy, 20 are under the age of 40. These young clergy are committed to seeking the truth that the Holy See possesses. They have come to this realization independent of the four clergy who are represented in this presentation. We have noted over the last few years that God has been raising up phenomenal young men in our diocese for priesthood. We now realize and believe the purpose of this explosion of priestly vocations at this time is to further help us understand the direction we must take. They are committed to teaching the truth of the Catholic faith and they have many years of ministry to give to accomplish what God began with us in 1983. We have seen many pieces of a puzzle come together over the years. We believe all of this is truly the work of the Holy Spirit and we continue to pray for guidance, courage and faith.
Finally, the Diocese of Fort Worth is the only diocese in the Episcopal Church that is strong enough to pursue the Proposal outlined below. We have a critical mass of clergy who are willing to bring the laity to support this proposal. There are many Catholics in the Anglican Tradition outside of our Diocese that look to the Diocese of Fort Worth for leadership. We believe the time is ripe for significant history making action on the part of the Holy Spirit. We believe the time is right and this is why we have come forward with this presentation.
VII. We believe Pope Benedict XVI understands our plight
Through his writings and his actions we believe that Pope Benedict XVI is sympathetic to our plight.
It is our belief that Pope Benedict XVI desires to uphold the Catholic faith whenever and wherever he finds it; especially in a world dominated by the super-dogma of relativism. It is this new dogma, this new denomination which motivates those who seek to remove the Catholic witness from The Episcopal Church.
In October, 2003, members of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and other Episcopalians throughout the United States met in Plano, Texas for a conference titled, "A Place to Stand: A Call to Mission". That conference was called to unite further those who opposed the ordination of a partnered homosexual as a Bishop in The Episcopal Church.
The highpoint of that conference was a letter from then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It reads as follows:
From Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The Vatican, on behalf of Pope John Paul II
I hasten to assure you of my heartfelt prayers for all those taking part in this convocation. The significance of your meeting is sensed far beyond Plano, and even in this City from which Saint Augustine of Canterbury was sent to confirm and strengthen the preaching of Christ's Gospel in England. Nor can I fail to recall that barely 120 years later, Saint Boniface brought that same Christian faith to my own forebears in Germany.
The lives of these saints show us how in the Church of Christ there is an unity in truth and a communion of grace which transcends the borders of any nation. With this is mind, I pray in particular that God's will may be done by all those who seek that unity in the truth, the gift of Christ himself.
With fraternal regards, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ
+Joseph Cardinal Ratszinger
Cardinal Ratzinger's letter was greeted with thunderous applause and a standing ovation.
Furthermore, in April, 2006 the four priests making this presentation, with our Bishop and two other priests of our Diocese, met with Bernard Cardinal Law at his residence in Rome. At that meeting we discussed our plight with him. Cardinal Law told us two important things. With regard to union with Rome he said, "What was not possible twenty years ago may be possible today." And, with regard to our moving forward he said, "Make us an offer". He told us that it was inappropriate for the Catholic Church to make an offer to another Christian body, such as ours, in distress. Rather, such an offer needed to come from us.
Pondering the words of then Cardinal Ratzinger and those of Cardinal Law, we entered our period of prayer and discernment.
Those making this presentation believe the Holy Spirit has brought us to this moment. It is a time when we who have believed ourselves to be priests of the Catholic faith, seek to become more clearly what we have always been.
VIII. We believe there is a charism which the Anglican ethos has to offer to the Universal Church
The Catholic Faith, as it has been lived in the Anglican Tradition, is a thing of great beauty. Why are we making a plea for it to continue? It is because the Catholic faith and practice, as lived out in the Anglican Tradition, is a unique charism well worth preserving.
Twentieth century Anglo Catholic authors like C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot and earlier Anglican theologians such as William Law ("Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life") and George Herbert ("The Country Parson") have enriched and enlightened countless souls. The religious life, the devotional societies, the guilds, the priestly fraternities (like the Catholic Clerical Union and the SSC) all speak to an expression of Catholic piety which continues to be attractive to people in the twenty-first century and are worthy of preserving for future generations. To take but one (local) example: the large number of young men offering themselves for ordination in this Diocese speaks to this expression's ability to nurture vocations. Also the Catholic Liturgy in the Anglican Tradition is a thing of great elegance, holiness, of long antiquity and solemn reverence.
The icon presented to his Excellency Bishop Vann, an icon of both St. Gregory and St. Augustine, represents our desire to return hom to Rome our first and true spiritual home.
What is it that we can offer to the greater Church? We believe we can offer a Catholic expression which for too long has been separated from the Universal Church. This is a tradition of inspiring liturgy, devout spirituality, loving pastoral care and a living spirituality. We believe it has a special and unique witness to the Faith, which we humbly offer as a beautiful jewel in the Catholic crown.
-----------------------------
At the conclusion of our presentation, the following proposal was submitted to Bishop Vann.
PROPOSAL
We request that the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth provide guidance and assistance as we look for a new way that would lead our Diocese into full communion with the Holy See.
We believe this guidance is necessary for the following reasons:
1. We cannot adequately prepare such a proposal without input from those to whom the proposal is to be made.
2. Such guidance would help us work through the complicated aspects of this proposal.
3. With this guidance, the Holy Spirit could affect more quickly the healing of this portion of the broken Body of Christ.
Should you consent, we gladly offer ourselves for this important work and stand ready to work with those you might designate.
-----------------------------
Having received words of encouragement from Bishop Vann, saying he saw in this presentation the hand of the Lord and the work of the Holy Spirit, the clergy retired to the Chapel of The Catholic Center for his blessing and a photograph.
[And here was reproduced a photograph of the four Episcopal priests and Bishop Vann, who is holding the icon.]
-------------------------------
A STATEMENT BY BISHOP IKER
ON ROMAN CATHOLIC DIALOGUES
I am aware of a meeting that four priests of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have had with Bishop Kevin Vann of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth on June 16, 2008. After a year of studying various agreed statements that have come out of ecumenical dialogues between Anglicans and Roman Catholics on the national and international level, these clergy expressed an interest in having a dialogue on the local level and asked my permission to make an appointment to talk with Bishop Vann. The stated goal of these official Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues (which have been going on for over 40 years) has been full, visible unity between the two communions.
The priests who participated in this meeting with Bishop Vann have my trust and pastoral support. However, in their written and verbal reports, they have spoken only on their own behalf and out of their own concerns and perspective. They have not claimed to act or speak, nor have they been authorized to do so, either on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth or on my own behalf as their Bishop.
Their discussion with Bishop Vann has no bearing upon matters coming before our Diocesan Convention in November, where a second vote will be taken on constitutional changes concerning our relationship with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. There is no proposal under consideration, either publicly or privately, for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to become part of the Roman Catholic Church. Our only plan of action remains as it has been for the past year, as affirmed by our Diocesan Convention in November 2007. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth intends to realign with an orthodox Province as a constituent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
By God’s grace, we will continue to work and pray for the unity of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
August 12, 2008
You can read the statement here. All I can say is that Bp. Iker must not have read the statement -- which was partially written by his own canon to the ordinary -- very carefully. As in:
We request that the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth provide the guidance necessary so that we might "make a proposal" that would lead our Diocese into full communion with the See of Peter.
As in:
The presentation was the result of two years of prayer and discernment regarding the future of our Diocese. At the conclusion of our discernment period, we shared our Findings with our Bishop, the Right Reverend Jack Leo Iker. Bishop Iker endorsed our report and gave us his "unequivocal support" to proceed with a presentation to Bishop Vann.
As in:
After this pilgrimage, we began meeting with the full knowledge and support of our Bishop. We came to realize that, like the Prodigal Son in the Gospel, it is up to us to make the initiative to return to the rock from whence we were hewn. In essence, that trip crystallized for us the need for perusing unity with the See of Peter now. Since that time we have studied, we have met, we have prayed, and now we come to the Church with our conclusions.
As in:
Furthermore, in April, 2006 the four priests making this presentation, with our Bishop and two other priests of our Diocese, met with Bernard Cardinal Law at his residence in Rome. At that meeting we discussed our plight with him. Cardinal Law told us two important things. With regard to union with Rome he said, "What was not possible twenty years ago may be possible today." And, with regard to our moving forward he said, "Make us an offer". He told us that it was inappropriate for the Catholic Church to make an offer to another Christian body, such as ours, in distress. Rather, such an offer needed to come from us.
Does ANY doubt remain of the small regard our leaders have for us?
And see the bridge in this photo? If you buy Bp. Iker's statement, I'd like to sell it to you . . .
The Brooklyn Bridge
-----------------------------------------------
Sometime rumors are true. Remember the rumor about Bishop Iker trying to take the Diocese to Rome? Well, read on.This document was put into the hands of the Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians by a source who came by it legitimately. I have reproduced it exactly as I received it.
It is authentic. See this story in the Dallas Morning News. And this story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
-------------------------------------
EIGHT CRUCIAL FINDINGS
1. We believe the See of Peter is essential not optional - Fr. Stainbrook
2. We believe a magisterium is needed desperately - Fr. Crary
3. We believe the Catholic Faith is true - Fr. Stainbrook
4. We believe the Anglican Communion shares the fatal flaws of TEC- Fr. Tobola
5. We believe our polity is in error-Fr. Crary
6. We believe we are not the only ones in our diocese - Canon Hough
7. We believe Pope Benedict XVI understands our plight - Fr. Tobola
8. We believe there is a charism which Anglican ethos has to offer to the Universal Church-Fr. Stainbrook
-----------------------
PREAMBLE - Fr. Crary
A. We appreciate your taking this time to meet with us.
B. Introduction of group by Fr. Crary. Fr. Crary introduces himself and then the group.
C. History: Our group met several times (with our Bishop's knowledge) for the past year and a half. Out meetings arose because of the on going crisis in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
D. We shared our conclusions with Bishop Iker on April 10th of this year. He gave us his "unequivocally support" to proceed further by having this conversation with you.
E. We would like to share briefly with you our journey and our conclusions which we shared with Bishop Iker.
F. However, before we share our thoughts we would like to present you with this icon which was commissioned expressly for you and for our meeting today.
------------------------
PROPOSAL
We request that the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth provide the guidance necessary so that we might "make a proposal" that would lead our Diocese into full communion with the See of Peter.
We believe this guidance is necessary for the following reasons:
1. We cannot adequately prepare such a proposal without input from those to whom the proposal is to be made.
2. Such guidance would help us through the complicated aspects of this proposal.
3. With this guidance, the Holy Spirit could affect more quickly the healing of this portion of the broken Body of Christ.
Should you consent, we gladly offer ourselves for this important work and stand ready to work with those you might designate.
-------------------------
A Presentation to
The Most Reverend Keven W. Vann
Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth
Given by
Members of the Clergy of
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
----------------------
That they all may be one;
even as thou, Father, are in me
and I in thee
John 17:21
-----------------------
PREAMBLE
At 3:00 p.m. on Monday, June 16, 2008 in the Catholic Center of the Diocese of Fort Worth, four priests of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth made the following presentation to the Most Reverend Kevin Vann. We are grateful for the hospitality and charity which we received from the Bishop and his Chancellor, the Very Reverend James E. Hart.
The presentation was the result of two years of prayer and discernment regarding the future of our Diocese. At the conclusion of our discernment period, we shared our Findings with our Bishop, the Right Reverend Jack Leo Iker. Bishop Iker endorsed our report and gave us his "unequivocal support" to proceed with a presentation to Bishop Vann.
The clergy making this presentation are:
The Very Reverend William A. Crary, Jr., SSC, a founding priest of the Diocese with 32 years of experience in the Diocese, a member of the SSC (Society of the Holy Cross), Dean of the Eastern Deanery, and is the senior rector in the Diocese, serving St. Laurence for 22 years.
The Reverend Canon Charles A. Hough, III, SSC, a founding priest of the Diocese with 30 years experience in the Diocese, Canon to Bishop Iker for 15 years, a member of the SSC, Chair of our Diocesan Deputation to the General Convention of The Episcopal Church for 23 years, has served parishes in Granbury and Grand Prairie.
The Reverend Louis L. Tobola, Jr., SSC, a founding priest of the Diocese with 31 years experience in the Diocese, a member of the SSC, a founding priest for a new congregation in the Diocese, St. Barnabas the Apostle, has served as Dean of the Cathedral and Dean of the Eastern Deanery.
The Very Reverend Christopher C. Stainbrook, SSC, came to Fort Worth from New York in 1990 by invitation of Bp. Pope, has been Vicar of St. Timothy's since 1994, is Finance Committee Chair, Diocesan Historiographer, Dean of the Fort Worth East Deanery, and Special Liaison to the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth.
Before their presentation, a hand-written icon of Saint Gregory and Saint Augustine, commissioned expressly for Bishop Vann and this meeting, was given to him.
[Here a photo of the icon was reproduced.]
-------------------------
EIGHT CRUCIAL FINDINGS
I. We believe the See of Peter is essential not optional
Unity with the Holy See is esse that is, essential for Catholic Christians (not bene esse, merely beneficial.) This is a concept which the Catholic Clergy in the Anglican Tradition have always believed (indeed it is one of the stated purposes of the SSC) but the rapid deterioration of the Anglican Communion makes it even more apparent now. The Prayer for Unity (John 17, that they all may be one) also compels us to pursue the possibility of reunion with Rome.
The very name of the first Pope, Peter, Petrus is the "rock" - and we have seen that it is the Petrine office which is important not the personality of an individual pontiff.
In April 2006 our Diocesan Bishop and several of the clergy made a pilgrimage to Rome. At that time we were blessed to have an informal visit with his Eminence, Bernard Cardinal Law. At that meeting, Cardinal Law indicated that the Catholic Church was aware of the current difficulties faced by Anglo Catholics (and particularly the Anglo Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth) at this time and said, in essence, for us to "make an offer" that is, make a Proposal on how we might respond to the crisis in our branch of Christendom. After this pilgrimage, we began meeting with the full knowledge and support of our Bishop. We came to realize that, like the Prodigal Son in the Gospel, it is up to us to make the initiative to return to the rock from whence we were hewn. In essence, that trip crystallized for us the need for perusing unity with the See of Peter now. Since that time we have studied, we have met, we have prayed, and now we come to the Church with our conclusions.
As Anglicans we realize that Henry VIII, the monarch who wrote "Defense of Seven Sacraments" and who was granted the title "Defender of the Faith", never intended to make any substantive or permanent changes in the Catholic faith. Indeed, the Reformation itself was intended to be for a limited time only, "a season", as the book of Ecclesiastes would say.
We believe that it is now time for a new Season. It is perhaps, time for a church of Reformation to die and a new unification among Christ's people be born: Unification possible only under the Holy Father.
II. We believe a magisterium is needed desperately
"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 21:25) This describes the day to day 'on the ground" reality in the Anglican Communion. Anglican "comprehensiveness" has no boundaries and no real center. For example, during the Reformation period under Elizabeth I, 1533-1603, there was an attempt to synthesize the Catholic and Protestant factions in the Church of England, resulting in the so-called "Elizabethan Settlement". Concerning the Eucharist, it was held that belief in the Real Presence of Christ was acceptable as well as the belief that the Eucharist was only a memorial or "remembrance" of something long ago. In essence the Anglican faith is what the parish priest says it is, and this varies widely with many contradictions. The Pentecostal/Evangelical/Charismatic expressions are just as valid as the Anglo-Catholic teaching. In most parts of the country, the parish priest is completely on his own.
Formerly, a single prayer book (the 1662 Church of England Prayer Book was the pattern for all national prayer books) provided some glue, but with the proliferation of endless trial liturgies even that has disappeared.
The lack of a teaching office has resulted in communicating un-baptized persons, same-sex unions and liturgical chaos everywhere. There are no boundaries and it is all uncontrollable. This is not theory but day to day reality. Anglican "comprehensiveness" has no boundaries. Previously this absence of a center seemed to work when the various ecclesiastical parties (Low Church/Broad Church/High Church) largely worked within their own circles. Low Church people did not attend High Church parishes and vice versa.
In looking at the disarray in the larger communion it is apparent that the Archbishop of Canterbury is incapable of providing decisive leadership. If there is a future, particularly for Catholic minded Anglicans, it is clear that a magisterium is absolutely essential.
III. We believe the Catholic Faith is True
The Catholic Faith is given - it is true.
The Epistle to the Ephesians reminds us that as Christians we believe in "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism". At the celebration of every Mass and in the recitation of any Daily Office we profess in the Creed "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". We have come to realize, to an extent even more fully than we had as Catholics in the Anglican Tradition, that our Blessed Lord has indeed founded only one true church: the Catholic Church.
Unlike so many forms of Protestantism, Catholic teaching does not change on a whim to suit the transient issues of the day. In addition, the Catholic Faith is not just one option among many. Anglican comprehensiveness with Catholics, Evangelicals and Liberals, all following their own paths, leads to the disintegration and disunion which we in the Diocese of Fort Worth find ourselves. The Protestant/Low Church teachings, the Liberals experiential teachings are just not true. The Catholic faith, the Catholic practice, the Catholic teaching - is true.
We know, and are living examples of the fact, that Catholic Witness has been present throughout the history of the Anglican Tradition. But it is now becoming weaker because of this idea, Catholic as one option among several. . . except here in Fort Worth, which is in so many ways unique (explored further in section VI).
IV. We believe the Anglican Communion shares the fatal flaws of The Episcopal Church
In our time of discernment, we have concluded that the difficulties we have faced in The Episcopal Church for the past thirty years will not be remedied by the Anglican Communion.
Those making this presentation have been members of The Episcopal Church since childhood. In this church we have been nourished by Catholic faith and practice. However, through the years we have witnessed the deterioration and marginalization of that Catholic faith. We believed that our call was to remain within our church as a remnant which could preserve the faith. Our expectation was that the Anglican Communion, in response to The Episcopal Church's continuing "innovations", would provide the stability and witness necessary for us to continue. However, it is apparent that the Communion is incapable of providing this stability.
It is our conclusion that the Anglican Communion has the same fatal flaws as The Episcopal Church. Without a magisterium the latest "religion" will continue to replace the historic teachings of our Communion. This erosion of Catholic faith and practice is heightened by the governing polity of the Anglican Communion. Bishops are elected by priests and laity of a Diocese. As the liberalizing culture enters another portion of the world, the Diocese there is deeply affected by it. Those who can be elected are only those who reflect the cultural shift that has occurred in that Diocese. We have seen this in The Episcopal Church and we see it now in the Anglican Communion.
We know what happens in a church which lacks a magisterium and whose polity makes the continuing of a Catholic witness impossible. We have concluded the Anglican Communion provides not safe future for us. Our witness, rather than being honored, has been persecuted.
V. We believe our polity is in error
In the New Testament no congregation votes on its pastor! St. Paul would have been unelectable in all, except maybe Philippi! Without exception pastors are sent by higher authority.
It was not a convention of delegates, but only the remaining apostles that established the criteria for Judas' replacement. St. John Chrysostom said that Peter had the authority to make the appointment but did not. Drawing lots put the choice in God's hands.
In the United States, the democratic style of polity in The Episcopal Church, strongly resembling the legislative branch of the U.S. government (House of Bishops and House of Deputies, lay and ordained) has created doctrinal chaos. Samuel Seabury (1729-1796) the first American Episcopal bishop was fearful of having clergy and lay people voting on doctrinal matters. His fears were realized when an early General Convention put the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds up for grabs. The Nicene Creed was voted out, then back in; and then the Athanasian Creed lost the vote.
In regard to the ordination of women, the 1976 General Convention changed the matter of a sacrament, established by Christ himself, simply by voting. Bishop Robert Terwilliger, formerly Suffragan of the Diocese of Dallas called it "voting our collective ignorance"!
Candidates for bishop in the American Episcopal Church shamelessly campaign like the politicians they are. When elected they are indebted to the electors.
We are in desperate need of a polity modeled on the New Testament and the early church.
VI. We believe we are not the only ones
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth came into existence in 1983 when it was decided that the Diocese of Dallas, of which it represents the western 1/3 of that diocese, would divide. We believe the hand of God was present in this decision and that it was the work of the Holy Spirit to bring into existence a diocese where the overwhelming majority of clergy living and working in that part of the old Diocese of Dallas were Catholic minded clergy. We now see as truly profound this action of creating the Diocese of Fort Worth. It set up what has now culminated in a Diocese of the Episcopal Church where its clergy are overwhelmingly Catholic minded.
The Diocese of Fort Worth has been a leader in standing against the apostasy that has been taking place in the Episcopal Church over the last three decades. We have witnessed Episcopal diocese after diocese fall away from a traditional Biblical and Catholic practice of the faith. It has now become impossible for the Catholic minded people to exist and survive in the Episcopal Church. As a result of this, the Diocese of Fort Worth is working toward a realignment of itself into another Province of the Anglican Communion. We have chosen to join the Province of the Southern Cone in South America. We believe this arrangement is temporary. As the Anglican Communion attempts to reform itself, it is becoming more and more evident that this problematic at best.
The overwhelming majority of clergy currently active in the Diocese of Fort Worth are willing to work earnestly for what we consider to be the only solution, and that is full communion with the Holy See. The breakdown of numbers is as follows:
There are currently 60 active clergy
We believe 9 will opt to stay in The Episcopal Church
51 will remain in a temporarily realigned diocese with the Southern Cone
5 are not interested at this time in working for full communion
46 are truly interested. If we add our seminarians currently on the priesthood track and our retired clergy the number becomes 59.
Our best guess is that approximately 59 clergy are willing to pursue an active plan to bring the Diocese of Fort Worth or a significant portion of it into full communion with the Holy See, if this be God's will.
We believe these numbers are the result of the Holy Spirit actively working among us since the formation of this diocese. We also recognize that it will take time to bring the laity on board with this proposal. While the clergy have come to recognize the truth which it held by the Holy See, we have much work to do with the laity.
This fact needs to be noted and is to be understood as a recognized part of our proposal.
We would also like to point out that of the 59 clergy, 20 are under the age of 40. These young clergy are committed to seeking the truth that the Holy See possesses. They have come to this realization independent of the four clergy who are represented in this presentation. We have noted over the last few years that God has been raising up phenomenal young men in our diocese for priesthood. We now realize and believe the purpose of this explosion of priestly vocations at this time is to further help us understand the direction we must take. They are committed to teaching the truth of the Catholic faith and they have many years of ministry to give to accomplish what God began with us in 1983. We have seen many pieces of a puzzle come together over the years. We believe all of this is truly the work of the Holy Spirit and we continue to pray for guidance, courage and faith.
Finally, the Diocese of Fort Worth is the only diocese in the Episcopal Church that is strong enough to pursue the Proposal outlined below. We have a critical mass of clergy who are willing to bring the laity to support this proposal. There are many Catholics in the Anglican Tradition outside of our Diocese that look to the Diocese of Fort Worth for leadership. We believe the time is ripe for significant history making action on the part of the Holy Spirit. We believe the time is right and this is why we have come forward with this presentation.
VII. We believe Pope Benedict XVI understands our plight
Through his writings and his actions we believe that Pope Benedict XVI is sympathetic to our plight.
It is our belief that Pope Benedict XVI desires to uphold the Catholic faith whenever and wherever he finds it; especially in a world dominated by the super-dogma of relativism. It is this new dogma, this new denomination which motivates those who seek to remove the Catholic witness from The Episcopal Church.
In October, 2003, members of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and other Episcopalians throughout the United States met in Plano, Texas for a conference titled, "A Place to Stand: A Call to Mission". That conference was called to unite further those who opposed the ordination of a partnered homosexual as a Bishop in The Episcopal Church.
The highpoint of that conference was a letter from then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It reads as follows:
From Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The Vatican, on behalf of Pope John Paul II
I hasten to assure you of my heartfelt prayers for all those taking part in this convocation. The significance of your meeting is sensed far beyond Plano, and even in this City from which Saint Augustine of Canterbury was sent to confirm and strengthen the preaching of Christ's Gospel in England. Nor can I fail to recall that barely 120 years later, Saint Boniface brought that same Christian faith to my own forebears in Germany.
The lives of these saints show us how in the Church of Christ there is an unity in truth and a communion of grace which transcends the borders of any nation. With this is mind, I pray in particular that God's will may be done by all those who seek that unity in the truth, the gift of Christ himself.
With fraternal regards, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ
+Joseph Cardinal Ratszinger
Cardinal Ratzinger's letter was greeted with thunderous applause and a standing ovation.
Furthermore, in April, 2006 the four priests making this presentation, with our Bishop and two other priests of our Diocese, met with Bernard Cardinal Law at his residence in Rome. At that meeting we discussed our plight with him. Cardinal Law told us two important things. With regard to union with Rome he said, "What was not possible twenty years ago may be possible today." And, with regard to our moving forward he said, "Make us an offer". He told us that it was inappropriate for the Catholic Church to make an offer to another Christian body, such as ours, in distress. Rather, such an offer needed to come from us.
Pondering the words of then Cardinal Ratzinger and those of Cardinal Law, we entered our period of prayer and discernment.
Those making this presentation believe the Holy Spirit has brought us to this moment. It is a time when we who have believed ourselves to be priests of the Catholic faith, seek to become more clearly what we have always been.
VIII. We believe there is a charism which the Anglican ethos has to offer to the Universal Church
The Catholic Faith, as it has been lived in the Anglican Tradition, is a thing of great beauty. Why are we making a plea for it to continue? It is because the Catholic faith and practice, as lived out in the Anglican Tradition, is a unique charism well worth preserving.
Twentieth century Anglo Catholic authors like C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot and earlier Anglican theologians such as William Law ("Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life") and George Herbert ("The Country Parson") have enriched and enlightened countless souls. The religious life, the devotional societies, the guilds, the priestly fraternities (like the Catholic Clerical Union and the SSC) all speak to an expression of Catholic piety which continues to be attractive to people in the twenty-first century and are worthy of preserving for future generations. To take but one (local) example: the large number of young men offering themselves for ordination in this Diocese speaks to this expression's ability to nurture vocations. Also the Catholic Liturgy in the Anglican Tradition is a thing of great elegance, holiness, of long antiquity and solemn reverence.
The icon presented to his Excellency Bishop Vann, an icon of both St. Gregory and St. Augustine, represents our desire to return hom to Rome our first and true spiritual home.
What is it that we can offer to the greater Church? We believe we can offer a Catholic expression which for too long has been separated from the Universal Church. This is a tradition of inspiring liturgy, devout spirituality, loving pastoral care and a living spirituality. We believe it has a special and unique witness to the Faith, which we humbly offer as a beautiful jewel in the Catholic crown.
-----------------------------
At the conclusion of our presentation, the following proposal was submitted to Bishop Vann.
PROPOSAL
We request that the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth provide guidance and assistance as we look for a new way that would lead our Diocese into full communion with the Holy See.
We believe this guidance is necessary for the following reasons:
1. We cannot adequately prepare such a proposal without input from those to whom the proposal is to be made.
2. Such guidance would help us work through the complicated aspects of this proposal.
3. With this guidance, the Holy Spirit could affect more quickly the healing of this portion of the broken Body of Christ.
Should you consent, we gladly offer ourselves for this important work and stand ready to work with those you might designate.
-----------------------------
Having received words of encouragement from Bishop Vann, saying he saw in this presentation the hand of the Lord and the work of the Holy Spirit, the clergy retired to the Chapel of The Catholic Center for his blessing and a photograph.
[And here was reproduced a photograph of the four Episcopal priests and Bishop Vann, who is holding the icon.]
-------------------------------
A STATEMENT BY BISHOP IKER
ON ROMAN CATHOLIC DIALOGUES
I am aware of a meeting that four priests of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have had with Bishop Kevin Vann of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth on June 16, 2008. After a year of studying various agreed statements that have come out of ecumenical dialogues between Anglicans and Roman Catholics on the national and international level, these clergy expressed an interest in having a dialogue on the local level and asked my permission to make an appointment to talk with Bishop Vann. The stated goal of these official Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues (which have been going on for over 40 years) has been full, visible unity between the two communions.
The priests who participated in this meeting with Bishop Vann have my trust and pastoral support. However, in their written and verbal reports, they have spoken only on their own behalf and out of their own concerns and perspective. They have not claimed to act or speak, nor have they been authorized to do so, either on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth or on my own behalf as their Bishop.
Their discussion with Bishop Vann has no bearing upon matters coming before our Diocesan Convention in November, where a second vote will be taken on constitutional changes concerning our relationship with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. There is no proposal under consideration, either publicly or privately, for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to become part of the Roman Catholic Church. Our only plan of action remains as it has been for the past year, as affirmed by our Diocesan Convention in November 2007. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth intends to realign with an orthodox Province as a constituent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
By God’s grace, we will continue to work and pray for the unity of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
August 12, 2008
You can read the statement here. All I can say is that Bp. Iker must not have read the statement -- which was partially written by his own canon to the ordinary -- very carefully. As in:
We request that the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth provide the guidance necessary so that we might "make a proposal" that would lead our Diocese into full communion with the See of Peter.
As in:
The presentation was the result of two years of prayer and discernment regarding the future of our Diocese. At the conclusion of our discernment period, we shared our Findings with our Bishop, the Right Reverend Jack Leo Iker. Bishop Iker endorsed our report and gave us his "unequivocal support" to proceed with a presentation to Bishop Vann.
As in:
After this pilgrimage, we began meeting with the full knowledge and support of our Bishop. We came to realize that, like the Prodigal Son in the Gospel, it is up to us to make the initiative to return to the rock from whence we were hewn. In essence, that trip crystallized for us the need for perusing unity with the See of Peter now. Since that time we have studied, we have met, we have prayed, and now we come to the Church with our conclusions.
As in:
Furthermore, in April, 2006 the four priests making this presentation, with our Bishop and two other priests of our Diocese, met with Bernard Cardinal Law at his residence in Rome. At that meeting we discussed our plight with him. Cardinal Law told us two important things. With regard to union with Rome he said, "What was not possible twenty years ago may be possible today." And, with regard to our moving forward he said, "Make us an offer". He told us that it was inappropriate for the Catholic Church to make an offer to another Christian body, such as ours, in distress. Rather, such an offer needed to come from us.
Does ANY doubt remain of the small regard our leaders have for us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)