tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post6328515141107259037..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: "One More Such 'Victory' . . .A. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-89174678553219765222009-03-31T12:14:00.000-07:002009-03-31T12:14:00.000-07:00Mr. Haley,I don't see a contradiction between the ...Mr. Haley,<BR/>I don't see a contradiction between the level of conflict in parishers over sexuality and my belief that GC Deputies do a fair job of representing their dioceses. Conflict in parishes does not necessarily translate into the election of more conservative Deputies. A parish may have conflict while remaining fairly supportive of, e.g., the confirmation of Bishop Robinson's election.<BR/>A point which seems to be missed in discussions of these issues is that the GC has been, in fact, rather cautious in its actions. Yes, it consented to the NH election, but it has so far declined to call for the development of rites for the blessing of same-sex unions and it has called for restraint in the election of Bishops whose manner of life would cause further divisions within the Communion. A Canadian friend finds it odd that ECUSA has come under much harsher criticism than the Anglican Church in Canada which has moved much further than ECUSA on the matter of same-sex unions. I have also been told, although I cannot attest to the accuracy of the statement, that there are more churches in the UK where blessings of same-sex unions take place than in the US or Canada. Perhaps, as i have suggested before, ECUSA is being tarred with the same brush that folks use to tar the US government.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-19818492581861119502009-03-28T12:03:00.000-07:002009-03-28T12:03:00.000-07:00Thanks for this great analysis. As a current 1L in...Thanks for this great analysis. As a current 1L in Property and someone who worshiped at Grace for several months while there on a Fellowship, I read Judge Schwartz's opinion attentively and had many thoughts similar to yours. But also because I'm a current 1L, I didn't have the time to break it all down as you have. Thanks for exposing the tragically flawed logic in his ruling. I pray there is a successful appeal.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133057840169388047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-60781483006968145542009-03-28T11:21:00.000-07:002009-03-28T11:21:00.000-07:00Father Weir, thank you once again for the gracious...Father Weir, thank you once again for the gracious tenor of your comments here. For better or for worse, you (along with Father Haller, who sometimes also comments here) represent what Martial Artist terms the "progressive" point of view, and as such are a good foil for the rest of us.<BR/><BR/>The idealized and conscientious deputy you depict sounds fine on paper. What happens when you throw all the individuals together into a frenetic two-week maelstrom of parliamentary activity, however, is something entirely different from the process you describe. A "pack mentality" can too often take hold, in which individuals get lost in the momentary crowd. <BR/><BR/>Take a careful look at the latest <A HREF="http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Bluebook-HODCSC.pdf" REL="nofollow">report on the State of the Church</A>, published as part of the current Blue Book online. Look particularly at Figure 4, on page 66. If the elected Deputies were truly representing their individual dioceses in their votes, there would not be any occasion to report that 64% of all ECUSA parishes are in conflict over the gay ordination issue, with 47% of them in serious conflict. <BR/><BR/>When one reads the full report, one has to wonder whether the entire process of discernment on this matter has not gone haywire. I think the recent suggestion, made from the floor at the convention of the Diocese of South Carolina, that the Church should cancel GC 2009 and just take a breather, has a lot of merit. Parishes need more time for reflection and discernment, and not still more activism crammed down their throats by non-representative deputies supposedly acting in their name.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-34813443469804459562009-03-28T07:07:00.000-07:002009-03-28T07:07:00.000-07:00It seems that an earlier comment of mine got lost ...It seems that an earlier comment of mine got lost in cyberspace.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with Mr. Haley's assertion that General Convention Deputies do not believe that "their function was to represent the parishes back home" and "are routinely brainwashed into believing they represent only their inner conscience." I see Mr. Haley's point, but I think the matter is much more complicated. Given the time delay between a Deputy's election and the GC, no one has a clear idea of what resolutions will be considered. We elect people we trust and we may take the time to inform them of our views of certain matters that may be considered. However, when it is time to vote, Deputies have to make their own prayerful and informed decisions, aware that they are representing their Dioceses, recognizing that no one back home has read the final version of the resolution or heard the debate and that the responsibility is theirs. If we are unhappy with the voting records of Deputies, we don't have to re-elect them. <BR/><BR/>Mr. Toepfer raises what I see as one of the most important problems with much of the debate about the issues that we face. We are tempted to move from clear statements of our convictions to the arrogant position that our convictions are the only ones a Christian could possibly hold. While I know I have yielded to that temptation, I am aware at my best moments that my convictions are far from perfect responses to God's grace and that my solutions to problems are not the only ones possible, and may well be the worst ones possible. <BR/><BR/>TardVenu's questions are important. The 39 Articles are a creation of a very different time and a very different context. We don't ignore such doucuments, but we are in danger if we take them out of context and see them as applicable to our time and context without interpretation. I disagree that we have jettisoned the canon of Scripture. I suspect that this assertion really means that some of us have arrived at different interpretations of Scripture than were and are the dominant ones. That has, clearly, happened before in the matter of slavery and the status of women in the Church and society. Whether or not my interpretation of Romans 1 is at all legitimate is a matter of debate within nearly every Christian denomination. I am well aware that I may be woefully mistaken in my interpretation and can only stand by it with that awareness and with trust in God's lovfe and mercy.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-91768658838100725412009-03-27T17:44:00.000-07:002009-03-27T17:44:00.000-07:00I repeat my questions to Fr. Weir for James and an...I repeat my questions to Fr. Weir for James and any others who would care to answer.TardVenuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708228615856369687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-77283827026320137232009-03-27T14:36:00.000-07:002009-03-27T14:36:00.000-07:00James, James---I have to conclude that you have no...James, James---I have to conclude that you have not troubled to spend much time on this blog. You say:<BR/><BR/>"If TEC had lost, you'd be praising the same 'convoluted' decision."<BR/><BR/>Unlike ECUSA's hired legal "expert" Mr. Chopko, James, my opinion is not for sale. No one on either side of this sorry dispute is helped by a decision as convoluted and contradictory as this one. Your attitude is <I>exactly</I> that which I criticized in Mr. Chopko:<BR/><BR/>"Tell it to the judge!" Mr. Chopko replies---"I did, and I persuaded him, so you lose." <BR/><BR/>And you say: "the bottom line is: the schismatics lost." <BR/><BR/>To both of you, I reply as I did above:<BR/><BR/>"And thus the law is sold down the river, bit by precious bit, by those who practice it. It is not I who lose, James and Mr. Chopko, but the law itself---which is to say, you and I together lose the integrity of that which we lawyers profess to serve, as a result of the Church's hired flimflamming." <BR/><BR/><BR/>I pray you the joy of a principled decision when you have need of it, James.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-61686684071507412182009-03-27T12:44:00.000-07:002009-03-27T12:44:00.000-07:00Fr. WeirSometimes, in my more pessimistic moments,...Fr. Weir<BR/><BR/>Sometimes, in my more pessimistic moments, I conclude that the ECUSA revisionists must be followers of Nicholas Storch and the Abecedarians. They simply can’t read! They certainly seem incapable of reading Holy Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Since you appear to be a supporter of ECUSA, perhaps you can answer two simple questions:<BR/> <BR/>(1) How can ECUSA justify jettisoning the 39 Articles and the canon of scripture?<BR/><BR/>(2) How can ECUSA justify the ordination of VGR when that action is so clearly contrary to Romans 1?TardVenuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708228615856369687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-67610433952090527742009-03-27T11:42:00.000-07:002009-03-27T11:42:00.000-07:00But, but, but, Anglican Curmudgeon, the bottom lin...But, but, but, Anglican Curmudgeon, the bottom line is, the judge said the schismatics were illegally occupying the buildings -- had no right to it, any other assets and the parish name. He told them to vacate and do it quickly. <BR/><BR/>Regardless of how convoluted the decision was in your opinion, the the bottom line is: the schismatics lost. <BR/><BR/>If TEC had lost, you'd be praising the same "convoluted" decision.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11622358803103789307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-5704593366690185222009-03-27T09:16:00.000-07:002009-03-27T09:16:00.000-07:00The "last days" may finally be upon us, both socio...The "last days" may finally be upon us, both socio-politically and ecclesiologically. I do not intend to suggest that I am speaking in the theological sense of the <I>eschaton</I> of humanity, but in the sense already experienced by Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Rome, Byzantium, <I>etc</I>.<BR/><BR/>I offer into evidence two current examples:<BR/><BR/>FIrst, the patently obvious <I>Chicken Littleist</I> response, by almost the entirety of our (and most of the rest of the industrialized world's) elected leadership, to the present international financial situation. Watching interviews of those "leaders" one is struck by nothing so much as by their somewhat self-conscious posturing under which is sensed, almost palpably, the terror of their having no clue that what they offer as solutions will not have the opposite, let alone the desired, effect on the situation.<BR/><BR/>Second, we have the patently egotistic reaction of the <I>progressive</I> leadership of TEC in response to those who do not see their current direction as led by the Holy Spirit. The comments of Fr. Weir, essentially a self-identified <I>progressive</I> (what some, gulled by the theft of that moniker around the beginning of the twentieth century, would incorrectly term <I>liberal</I>) to some degree exemplify their reaction. They assume that their position in the conflict is the moral and Christian one. The telling comment in this instance is this: "every active adult member of every congregation in every diocese in ECUSA is enfranchised and gets to vote for the persons who get to vote, etc."<BR/><BR/>He takes for granted that the will of the GenCon majority, however uninformed, or even steeped in error, it is, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I suspect, but cannot prove, that he adopts this stance because their current conclusions affirm his <I>Weltanschaung</I>. All <I>progressives</I>, and not a few <I>conservatives</I>, start from the assumption that they understand what <B>THE</B> solution is. Very few people in general start from the assumption that, within some limiting framework, there <B>may not be just one best solution</B>, but rather that, within that limiting framework, each should be free to establish his or her own <I>best solution</I>.<BR/><BR/>It is not generally the case, as is so often assumed, that <I>vox populi, vox Dei</I>. I would humbly suggest that in both of the situations cited, it is most definitely not the case. Rather, in my opinion, what we are seeing in both are sterling examples of "popular delusions and the madness of crowds." If I am correct, we may be looking at, in one instance, the opening scenes of the "last days" of TEC and, in the other, that of U.S. dominance of the world's political stage.<BR/><BR/>Blessings and regards,<BR/>Keith ToepferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059467870069787735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-84038860088921437552009-03-27T07:55:00.000-07:002009-03-27T07:55:00.000-07:00I disagree with Fr. Weir in that I do not believe ...I disagree with Fr. Weir in that I do not believe we have a "democratic" polity. <BR/><BR/>We may have a "representative" polity, but I have never in my cradle to grave years in the Episcopal Church been asked to ever vote for a delegate to a national convention. Locally, we vote for delegates to the diocesean convention, to local convocations, and somehow (through the electoral college perhaps?) people get sent to national conventions. <BR/><BR/>If this little rant is a sign of ignorance, then it will support the Curmudgeon's hypothesis generating quotation that as, "Bishop O'Neil testified that no one expects church members to know much about the canons."Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-58126139130343909422009-03-27T07:48:00.000-07:002009-03-27T07:48:00.000-07:00Father Weir, I could agree with you if the deputie...Father Weir, I could agree with you if the deputies to General Convention actually believed that their function was to represent the parishes back home. But they don't. They are routinely brainwashed into believing they represent only their inner conscience. And that has led to the Church's current dysfunction, as I have <A HREF="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/12/representing-jesus-at-gc-2009.html" REL="nofollow">written about here</A>.<BR/><BR/>The Episcopal Church (USA) is anything <I>but</I> a democracy. "Episcopally led"---yes. "Synodically governed"---no. Instead, it is currently governed by the consensus of 880 free consciences that are encouraged to run amok.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-34941008006618037002009-03-27T07:37:00.000-07:002009-03-27T07:37:00.000-07:00All the talk about breach of trust and top down de...All the talk about breach of trust and top down decision-making ignore, IMV, that every active adult member of every congregation in every diocese in ECUSA is enfranchised and gets to vote for the persons who get to vote, etc. So, as in the US governing system, all of us have had a hand in the revision of canons, the passing of budgets, etc.<BR/>One way to have avoided the problem would have been to decide not to enfranchise anybody but the bishops or, more narrowly, an archbishop. Of course, given the mood in the earliest days of independence, that would not have happened. It was not even a sure thing that we would have bishops.<BR/>We decided for a democratic polity and, as will always be the case, some of us are unhappy about the decisions that our elected representatives have made.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-38889476849222537202009-03-27T06:41:00.000-07:002009-03-27T06:41:00.000-07:00Pewster, as TardVenu (you may be late, but you are...Pewster, as TardVenu (you may be late, but you are welcome here, TardVenu) indicates, a trustee who violates the terms of the trust is liable to be sued for a breach of trust.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately for such purposes, ECUSA gets the benefit of a one-way street created by the First Amendment. That is, ECUSA can do pretty much what it darn well pleases and then claim that the courts have to accept what it has done, since it is "hierarchical", and the actions of its "highest judicatory" (there is none, of course) are entitled to complete deference in the courts. And should someone sue ECUSA for a breach of trust, it trots out the First Amendment and says: "Not so fast, Your Honor---that would involve an inquiry into internal church affairs that would constitute an 'impermissible entanglement'." So they get it coming and going, under the Supreme Court majorities that decided <I>Serbian Orthodox</I> and <I>Jones v. Wolf</I>. The question is: what does today's majority think?<BR/><BR/>On the Druids winning the property case, TardVenu, I quite agree. My point was that when that comes to pass (and it surely will), it will be Father Weir and his fellows who will, as the then "orthodox", be thrown out of their churches. So watch out about making claims to be suing to protect the property for future generations---those generations can just as easily leave you in the dust as today's generation has left those of us who consider ourselves "orthodox".A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-90872259779156817662009-03-27T01:19:00.000-07:002009-03-27T01:19:00.000-07:00Apologies to Fr. Weir, but "to make an omelet, som...Apologies to Fr. Weir, but "to make an omelet, some eggs must be broken". In other words, we've got to start over.<BR/><BR/>I've said this before.<BR/><BR/>It occurred to me if the next GC voted to transfer TEC to the Wiccans and change the position of Presiding Bishop to Arch-Druid, the conservatives would still lose on property issues. <BR/><BR/>TEC needs to be challenged where they are most vulnerable, i.e. they are no longer a Christian Church. Having rejected the 39 Articles and the canon of scripture, TEC has committed, IMHO, an actionable breach of trust. In other words, TEC should be disestablished.<BR/><BR/>Also, I’m sick of hearing how St. Paul is no longer relevant. His letters have always been in the canon and are certainly listed in the "accepted books" by Eusebius. That said, Romans 1 pretty much says it all and should be enough to bring TEC down.<BR/><BR/>Finally, dare we hope that St. Clements, El Paso, will be able to leave TEC and keep their property? Perhaps residing in Texas will give them more of a chance.TardVenuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708228615856369687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-21517079826086543512009-03-26T10:03:00.000-07:002009-03-26T10:03:00.000-07:00Dear Mr. Haley,You wrote "The Church (at the natio...Dear Mr. Haley,<BR/><BR/>You wrote "The Church (at the national level, at least) regards you not as someone whom it must inform, or treat with any courtesy or respect, but as just another source of funds for as long as you are ignorant enough to allow it to control local property matters without your knowledge."<BR/><BR/>As I have been pointing out for some several years (although I am not sure that I have done so in any comments on your site), the leadership of the Episcopal Church, in treating dioceses and parishes in this fashion, <I>i.e.,</I> by treating it members as a "cash cow", has consistently and repeatedly violated the one provision of its Baptismal Covenant which, on the basis of the sheer number words, publicly written and spoken by its representatives, seems to be the one it holds most dear. I refer, of course, to that portion of the ultimate vow which reads "and to respect the dignity of every human being."<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that such hypocrisy on the part of a church should go neither unremarked nor unrewarded. I have done my part by departing to a Church which does, in fact and in its actions, respect the dignity of <B>every human being</B>, including those whom the Episcopal Church officially, even if only implicitly, deems not necessarily worthy of such respect—the unborn—as can be unambiguously deduced from TEC's membership in the <I>Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice</I>.<BR/><BR/>Blessings and regards,<BR/>Keith ToepferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059467870069787735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-26001701515649392172009-03-25T21:30:00.000-07:002009-03-25T21:30:00.000-07:00Man, that Denis Canon is becoming more powerful th...Man, that Denis Canon is becoming more powerful than the Donation of Constantine. Maybe in 1400 years, the courts will get around to doing actual legal research.Jason Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02368779237819361612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-87635885643939116502009-03-25T18:02:00.000-07:002009-03-25T18:02:00.000-07:00You have achieved the ultimate compliment. Your po...You have achieved the ultimate compliment. Your post has been been posted on T19 with comments closed. Clearly, again, you've said it all. In a way Kendall would prefer not to have to be associated with. (Sorry to end a sentence with a preposition.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01134718615424085878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-81805364544706749912009-03-25T13:44:00.000-07:002009-03-25T13:44:00.000-07:00The problem with living organizations is that they...The problem with living organizations is that they change. It may be true that many of the memebers of Episcopal congregations are not aware of how canons can change, but that doesn't mean that they are free to disregard those canons. Some may call the changes "top down" but the "bottom up" nature of elections in the Episcopal Church is very clear and simple. To use an analogy from government, if the citizens of this village don't like the laws that are made by elected legislators at the county, state or federal level, they would have the right to move, but not to secede.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-11239870339950229672009-03-25T12:18:00.000-07:002009-03-25T12:18:00.000-07:00The implied trust of those long dead souls who pai...The implied trust of those long dead souls who paid for the bricks and mortar of most of these churches was that these would be used to raise their descendants in the Anglican tradition. T.E.C. should be put to the test in each individual circumstance as to whether or not it is a fit trustee of that tradition. The secular courts do not want grade those papers. <BR/><BR/>What do you do when the trustee is found to be unfit?Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.com