New head of Episcopal church - liberal?


#1

Anybody see the NYTimes on Sunday? There was a section introducing the new head of the Episcopal church. I’m surprised she was named the head of the church. Attached is the article for the Times.

nytimes.com/2006/11/19/magazine/19WWLN_Q4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

She seems to have some angst towards the Catholic church and convervativism. In particular, note her response when asked how many Episcopalians there are: “About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.”

Also, when asked why about the controversy regarding the Pope’s comments and Muslim’s history of violence, she responded: “So do Christians! They have a terrible history. Look at history in the Dark Ages. Charlemagne converted whole tribes by the sword. I think Muslims are poorly understood by the West, and it is easy to latch onto that which we do not understand and demonize it.”

Note that she did not say “We have a terrible history.”…rather “They have a terrible history.” - Does she not consider herself a Christian, or was she referring to Catholics?

I think alot of conservative Episcopalians are going to have a problem with her.


#2

A lot of conservative, traditional and orthodox Anglicans in general, not just the few remaining conservative Episcopalians, have a problem with her. Of course, the conservative, traditional, etc, etc, have a problem with Anglicanism in general these days. Not the least among the reasons for which is Anglicans who place mitres on hairspray, and refer to the effect as a bishop.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *


#3

Hi,.
I am so happy Im not Episcopalian anymore. Now I just have to convince my mom to get out.:frowning:


#4

And you’re suprised that she was elected the head of the Episcopal Church?


#5

No. Unfortunately.


#6

There are many Anglicans and Episcopalians who have a problem with her. Unfortunately, I can’t say I’m surprised at her election, just disappointed. I guess I just thought there was still some sense of traditional beliefs and values. Many people are unhappy with the leaders of the Church and their decision to elect her.


#7

I can’t really comment on this, as I don’t know who ‘she’ is but as an Anglican, I’m certainly saddened by these comments.

Personally I’ve been looking at leaping for some time. I don’t know where to leap to, to be brutally honest the orthodox church certainly seems more like the true church more than the Roman Catholic church does.You just have to look at the reasons for the great schism to see this.

There’s only one Orthodox church where I live and I think they all speak english as a second language, which while not being a problem doctrine wise, could make it difficult for me. (just being a realist).

make of it what you will.


#8

She said “They” cos that statement was a statement of guilt and she doesn’t want to be part of it for that instance.

In other words, don’t catch her doing anything wrong cos she will put herself out of your grip the moment she is cornered. Remember, she said ‘shalom’ in replace for being labelled ‘forgiving’. What she’s saying is, don’t bother what I’m doing, and don’t challenge me. Just leave me to do anything I like, I forgive you, so you better forgive me. SHALOM.

The West have misunderstood muslims indeed. It took the 9/11 to make them realise what kind of terror they were breeding underground.


#9

This woman is an apostate and nothing more.
She is not a “Bishop” nor is any other woman.
WP


#10

How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?
About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.

*Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children? *
No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.

*You’re actually Catholic by birth; your parents joined the Episcopal Church when you were 9. What led them to convert?
*
It was before Vatican II had any influence in local parishes, and I think my parents were looking for a place where wrestling with questions was encouraged rather than discouraged.

You can’t blame the Haggard case on the culture or the media. It isn’t a story about sex so much as the disturbing hypocrisy of a church leader.
But we’re all hypocrites. All of us.

One more example of a self appointed sophisticate who fails to understand and study what the Catholic faith really teaches.

Also, I find the use of the word hypocrite interesting. All are not hypocrites. Is not authentic hypocrisy when one claims to adhere to certain teachings all the while never really believing them at all? Not unlike some who profess Christianity while really rejecting the central teachings?


#11

As an Episcopalian I am very proud of my church! She is a progressive, which is a relief to Episcopalians who actually go to church. Studies have shown that weekly church goers are more liberal than Episcopalians who attend church rarely. The homophobic and sexist conservative movement in the Episcopal Church (USA) is a minority and this election only proves that. Bishop Katherine what elected by the majority of bishops in the House of Bishops at General Convention and was confimed by a majority of lay and clergy people in the House of Deputies. Conservative groups like the American Anglican Council (AAC) have criticized the Presiding Bishop’s liberal supporters for their theology. The theology makes a lot more sense than theirs especially in this millenium. The Bible cannot be taken word for word literally, if conservative Christians had their way on every issue in the past slavery would still exist in the United States, women would be a lesser being than man, segregation would still exist in our schools and interracial marriage would be illegal.

Christ rejected no one and neither does the Episcopal Church!
The Episcopal Church — ALL ARE WELCOME!


#12

I couldn’t agree with you more, except I would never call groups like the AAC merely conservative, they are radical right fundies, just like many Prots and Catholics alike on the site are. These radical right fundies are merely “conservative” just like super hot habanero chile peppers are merely just a tiny bit spicy, you cant handle them without wearing gloves.

Beleive it or not there actaully used to be such a thing as honest-to-God liberal Catholics. a lot of them, they still actually exist, check out the web publication and hard copies of the National Catholic REPORTER, not register.

I am not insulted in the least by being called liberal, liberal is not a four letter word. Liberals unlike right wing radicals actually care about other people than themselves. Radical right wingers care about nothing but their own bank balances, if they can save a penney on their tax bills they could care less if the poor starve.


#13

How many people here actually think that St. Francis with his radical poverty, owning nothing of his own would be a radical right winger, who could care less about the poor?


#14

You’re doing what the liberal “intelligentsia” of the Episcopal Church have done to the far more orthodox Christians of the Episcopal Church: you’ve stolen the argument and replaced it with something that’s NOT (an argument, that is). You’re basically saying, like Jefferts-Schorri,“Please can’t we get past these tired old arguments about sexual morality and sin and get to what’s really important in the Gospel: feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner and the widow and the orphan,” with big tears in your eyes and a quiver of righteous indignation in your voice. It works (sort of) because it incorporates PART of the Gospel (the actual words of the Redeemer, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity; who could fail to be stirred by it?). The thing is that it’s based on a lie. There is no credible evidence that orthodox Catholic or conservative non-Catholic Christians are any less concerned with the poor than the Episcopal PB or V. Gene Robinson or Bishop Thomas Gumbleton or Sr. Joanie Chichester. Not a whit. Because any person who reads the Bible and takes it seriously (much less also has access to the accumulated teachings of Holy Mother Church) knows that we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit widows and orphans and prisoners in their distress, to give a cup of cold water to the least of His so that, thereby, we are giving it to Him. Our salvation becomes problematic if, claiming to know Him, we fail to do these things. But we also know that we are not supposed to engage in illicit sexual acts, and we know that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman that is indissovable (really, as big a scandal as V. Gene Robinson is the newly elected Episcopal bishop of Northern California who’s on his third wife). Why? Because the Same God who said all of the sweet and gentle stuff had some hard things to say about those very things.

Base the argument for your views on *something *(you might try Scripture, Tradition AND Reason rightly formed, though I doubt you’ll get far), but at least be honest enough not throw out a red herring that implies that those who oppose this direction are bent on either neglecting or oppressing the poor. It’s disingenous…


#15

What is disingenous is your outrageous lie that that “orthodox” (code word for radical right fundie “catholics”) are any less concerned for the poor". If that were true they would not vote for Republicans who never met a cut in welfare funding they didn’t love, or a cut in food stamps that they did not love. Remember Ronald Raygun with his outregous statement that catsup “is a vegetable”? With the Republicans it is sink or swim, you are on your own, feed yourself or starve. With the Republicans it is “taxation is the same as theft”, real concern there allright.


#16

As Christians (Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox), we need to consider what the Bible and the Sacred Traditions (in the case of Catholic and Orthodox) tell us. We must stand up for the right to life of unborn children and for the sanctity of marriage. Yes, there are some pro-life Democrats who also believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman; but sadly, in many of our elections, that is not the case. I always choose to protect the life of the unborn and to defend the sanctity of marriage when I vote. If either a Democrat or a Republican is pro-abortion or pro-gay “marriage”, I cannot in good conscience vote for him. Many people have already left the Episcopal Church because of their practices that are contrary to what the Bible teaches. I expect more to leave due to this new leader.

As a Catholic, one cannot pick and choose which Church teachings to follow and which to ignore. Pro-life and pro-traditional marriage are non-negotiables, and these are two areas that need to be addressed most by our government leaders. Doing works of charity toward the poor can be addressed by individuals and churches on a local level if the government does not seem to be doing enough. In fact, the corporal works of mercy are supposed to be done by individuals, as Jesus tells us in the Bible.


#17

I’m curious. How long have you been an Episcopalian?

With current trends continuing, in a short few years the Episcopal Church will be a miniscule communion limited to aged parishoners and theological radicals. Conservative and moderate Episcopalians will have left the Church for other Anglican bodies or other denominations, including the Catholic Church. A few years after that, the faithful aged will have expired and the Episcopal Church will be a sorrowful remnant of a once great communion of faith. Last ones there, please turn off the lights…


#18

The AAC and like minded Anglican groups within, and without, the Episcopal Church hold to more of the Catholic faith than the Episcopal Church does.


#19

I am forced to dissagree, unless you consider fundamentalism in some way to be “the Catholic faith”.


#20

First of all, let’s deal with your use of the word “fundamentalist.”
(And please, make no mistake, I’m able to empathize with the use you make of the term, as I regularly make reference to “fundamentalist Protestants” and “fundamentalist Evangelicals” and “fundmentalist Moslems”). Fundamentalism is, basically, an attitude of adherance to the “fundamentals” of whatever set of beliefs one subscribes to. So, yes, I guess I’m a “fundamentalist Catholic,” in that I subscribe to the basics of Catholicism. Here’s the problem (for you, at least): the basics, the “fundamentals,” in Catholicism is the whole shebang, the entire bag of tricks. When I was received into the the Church (raised Baptist, five years as an Episcopalian), I stood before the Altar, before the Blessed Sacrament, in the presence of one of Christ’s priests, and affirmed my belief that the teachings of the Catholic Church were revealed by God, all of them (the bits about feeding the poor, tending to the widow and orphan and the imprisoned, the bits about no slap and tickle outside the sacrament of marriage, the bits about not htiching up with George rather than Georgina, the bits about “very God of very God,” the bits about the Virgin Birth and that Mary was always a virgin, that she was indeed conceived immaculately, that she was assumed into Heaven, the bits about the Most Sacred Body and the Most Precious Blood, the bits about Calvary being made present at every Mass, the bits about the "great cloud of witnesses, ie, the Communion of the Saints, the bits about the Pope speaking by the virtue and the authority of his office, all of it). The “fundamentals” are all of it. So I’m hardly insulted when you call me a fundmentalist Catholic. Aren’t you?

NOW, in the scale and balance between public and eccelsiastical life, there are things that have a greater immediacy, a greater import, a greater sense of urgency. One could very easily argue that Catholic concerns that babies not be murdered (very much a fundamental) might just lead the faitful to vote for someone who is pro-life, but who doesn’t square absolutely with the Church’s teachings on the poor? Why? Because the poor, being alive, have a fighting chance. The dead unborn DON’T. And that makes it more immediate.

Also, the Church’s concern for the poor doesn’t mean that the Church has laid out the belief (de fide upon all Catholics) that government has to be the method and means by which that concern is addressed (I happen to believe it’s a pretty good way to deal with poverty, but that’s just MY own thinking, not the Church’s). So in this area, Catholics are allowed a liberty of conscience which they are not allowed in the area of other “fundamentals.”


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.