fashionablyevil ([info]fashionablyevil) wrote,
@ 2008-12-03 14:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
things that disappoint me
Looks like the Episcopal Church is going to split. I'm somewhat ambivalent because they're breaking away because of what I think of as bigotry and hatred (omg teh gayz!) and it kind of sucks that they see this as the best option available. However, I'm not sure I would want to be (even remotely) associated with clergy members (bishops no less!) who make statements like this:

Bishop Iker of Fort Worth said in a recent interview with a Web site that he considers himself in a “state of impaired communion” with women priests from Pittsburgh, and that they would not be allowed to celebrate the eucharist in his diocese.


Just ew.

One other key point:
If the conservatives try to take their church properties with them, they are likely to face lawsuits from the Episcopal Church. The church is already suing breakaway parishes and dioceses in several states to retain church property — a precedent that could inhibit others from leaving.


It's not very nice, but I feel a little smug about this. I mean, I knew it would happen (there's precedent and the courts do not like to get involved in disputes over canon law), but it seems at least partial punishment for being bigots and misogynists in the first place.

(Post a new comment)


[info]ataralas
2008-12-04 01:46 am UTC (link)
This saddens me.

I, like you, don't really want to be associated with people who don't believe that women and GBLT(...) people should be ordained. On the other hand, I believe that we can be a church together if we disagree on non-essentials. And it bugs me that issues of gender and sexuality have somehow become "essential" faith tenants.

And I hope that the Episcopal Church retains the property that is rightfully theirs and applies it to the mission of the church.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]fashionablyevil
2008-12-04 02:01 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for this. I am also troubled that gender and sexuality have become core issues as well. I always thought it was "Love thy neighbor" and "Do unto others..." But what do I know?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ataralas
2008-12-04 08:03 pm UTC (link)
Or "Do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God"? Or "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity"?

What really gets my goat is that I can accept Bishop Iker as part of the church. I don't like him or his ideas, but I can live with that. Why can't he do the same?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fashionablyevil
2008-12-04 08:30 pm UTC (link)
I guess all of non-heterosexual non-males are defective. But also, what bugs me about this is that the Episcopal church has a long tradition of respecting local congregations/priests/bishops/dioceses. No one is making them endorse whatever it is they object to. At all!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]evil_fizz
2008-12-04 02:58 am UTC (link)
I wonder how Bishop Iker feels about the Presiding Bishop being a woman. Fort Worth and San Joaquin have always been ridiculously conservative, but this bugs me tremendously.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]fashionablyevil
2008-12-04 02:03 pm UTC (link)
I know! Does that mean he considers himself to be in a "state of impaired communion" with her too?

Incidentally, why are Ft. Worth and San Joaquin so conservative? I didn't think they were particularly conservative places.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]evil_fizz
2008-12-04 02:19 pm UTC (link)
I dunno why they're so conservative, although neither has ever permitted the ordination of women. I know that Katharine Jefferts Schori and the bishop of San Joaquin had a to-do a couple of years ago, but I'm not sure what that was about.

I would find it odd, to say the very least, if it was his position that he had been in a state of impaired communion with the presiding bishop since her investiture, but who knows?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]evil_fizz
2008-12-04 02:32 pm UTC (link)
Oh, I almost forgot! Fort Worth asked for "alternate oversight" (I think from the Archbishop of Canterbury) when she was elected. I don't know what came of that, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fashionablyevil
2008-12-04 02:33 pm UTC (link)
How do you keep up with all of this? Was it a big deal at your church when it happened?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ataralas
2008-12-04 07:59 pm UTC (link)
San Joaquin is pretty darn conservative—the interior of CA is pretty red.

We've got a Presbytery of San Joaquin, and they're known as San Wacky Presbytery.

Fort Worth? Well, who knows. It's Texas.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fashionablyevil
2008-12-04 08:14 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I forget that about California. Of course, I speak as a resident of the "blue island in the red sea."

I think the Ft. Worth thing might be historical. Apparently there are a number of parishes that are not interested in leaving.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…