Saturday, 25 November 2006

more about Bishop Katharine

Earlier this month, the Witness published a lengthy article about the new American Presiding Bishop.
Katharine Jefferts Schori Takes Office on a Wing and a Prayer.

Sarah Dylan Breuer draws from an interview with the Most Rev. Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori as well as experience of serving alongside her in two church bodies for an in-depth profile of the 26th Presiding Bishop and some personal predictions of what the church might expect in her tenure.

More recently, the New York Times Magazine published an interview with her headlined State of the Church. Some of this drew criticism, but as Fr Jake explained both here and here, her replies are factually correct.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 25 November 2006 at 10:20am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

It is interesting that the Church Times has reported that Bishop Katharine has not received ANY response from her request to meet informally with the four overseas bishops who have been visiting the US.

Not a "no thanks, we're too busy" - just silence. How rude is that? What justification is there for such boorish (one might even say un-Christlike) behaviour?

Posted by: David Chillman on Saturday, 25 November 2006 at 2:19pm GMT

David, I haven't seen the Church Times report. But you seem a little hasty to condemn:

http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/a_statement_by_the_global_south_steering_committee_on_consultations_apo/

Posted by: Neil Barber on Saturday, 25 November 2006 at 8:44pm GMT

The thing that struck me about The Church Times Article was that it titled her "Dr. Jefferts Schori" and referred to her constantly as such. I wondered whether that was her preference.

I'm not sure if the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA gets to be "Rt. Revd" but surely she is a "Revd Dr"?

The article does claim that she has had no answer from the visiting African bishops.

Posted by: PamBG on Saturday, 25 November 2006 at 11:22pm GMT

Standard CT style: the same issue also refers repeatedly to Dr Williams.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 25 November 2006 at 11:28pm GMT

Her lumping of Roman Catholics with Mormons is as theologically misleading as such phrases as "Anglicans and Unitarians" or "Anglicans and Jehovah's Witnesses" would be, and her account of Roman Catholic teaching is not factually correct -- the Church, as the French Bishops declared before Vatican II -- "is NOT natalist at any cost". "Responsible parenthood" is a mantra of the Vatican, stressed in Humanae Vitae and in Gaudium et Spes. The ethical problems posed for governments and parents by the population explosion were taken very seriously in those texts.

I admire the Presiding Bishop and place great hopes in her, but her remark is a blemish, and more importantly it is a troubling sign that needs to be addressed now before worse ensues.

There is a tradition of snide remarks on RCs from Anglican lips, one that both churches are anxious to bury forgivingly in the past; the Presiding Bishop should be aware of the poisonous tradition her remarks are likely to evoke.

Her casual remark shows a lack of ripe theological formation and a certain provincialism. I suggest that like most leading public figures she hire advisers -- in this case theological advisers -- to protect her from her weak spots. In the meantime, she should offer an apology. It is the Christian thing to do and would be an edifying example to us all.

Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II on Sunday, 26 November 2006 at 2:59am GMT

Neil,

The link you provided comes from 8th November and says:
"A number of the primates have also been sent an invitation by Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori. They will be responding to her in due course through private communication."

The Church Times of 24th November states that no such response was in fact received.

The article, by Douglas LeBlanc, does not give a source for this statement, but appears on the surface to have come from Dr Jefferts Schori's office.

Perhaps someone with a link to the Primates concerned (Nigeria, West Africa, West Indies and Kenya) might be able to confirm whether or not they did get around to responding (personally or corporately) to the polite request made by the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA?

("It got lost in the post" or "the dog ate it" is unlikely to be a satisfactory answer!)

Posted by: David Chillman on Sunday, 26 November 2006 at 6:43pm GMT

I have no problem with calling Bishop Jefferts Schori, "Dr." since she earned her PhD. However, the technical title for the Presding Bishop is the "Most Reverend" as opposed to "Right Reverend" for other bishops.

Posted by: Bob on Sunday, 26 November 2006 at 9:02pm GMT

"There is a tradition of snide remarks on RCs from Anglican lips, one that both churches are anxious to bury forgivingly in the past; the Presiding Bishop should be aware of the poisonous tradition her remarks are likely to evoke."

SpiritV2, in the 21st century, can't we get past this game of "out-victimizing" one another? Let go of ALL our "poisonous traditions"? (And let *both* Thomas Cranmer and Thomas More rest in peace!)

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Sunday, 26 November 2006 at 10:46pm GMT

David, I wonder if you are really expecting a "private communication" to involve the Church Times or the internet?

Seems unreasonable to me to band about words like "rude" and "unChristlike" at this stage when they have said what they have said. Unless of course your mind is already made up and they're damned if they do and damned if they don't?......

Posted by: Neil Barber on Sunday, 26 November 2006 at 11:32pm GMT

I certainly am not in favor of a victim culture. But consciousness of past venomous traditions should guide our present speech. When US Bishops talk as they do about gays, for example, they seem oblivious of the evil tradition to which they themselves belong, in that the execution and imprisonment of gays has been an episcopal forte and in that bishops have never spoken up against it. If they had reflected for a moment, they could not have trotted out biblical texts about gays "deserving to die". I agree, of course, that the bishops' utterances and behavior is evil, as you have pointed out, whereas Bp Katharine's is merely careless. But he who is faithful in little things is more likely to be faithful in greater ones as well. To take small mistakes lightly is to encourage greater ones. You do not want bishops as arrogant and blind as the US Catholic Bishops, do you? (George Bush can thank them for his 2004 re-election.) Well, be vigilant!

Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II on Monday, 27 November 2006 at 12:49am GMT

Spirit of Vatican 2 wrote, “Her lumping of Roman Catholics with Mormons is as theologically misleading as such phrases as "Anglicans and Unitarians" or "Anglicans and Jehovah's Witnesses" would be, and her account of Roman Catholic teaching is not factually correct -- the Church, as the French Bishops declared before Vatican II -- "is NOT natalist at any cost". "Responsible parenthood" is a mantra of the Vatican, stressed in Humanae Vitae and in Gaudium et Spes. The ethical problems posed for governments and parents by the population explosion were taken very seriously in those texts.”

I don’t know what spirit the writer represents, but the first 32 years of my 62 year life were spent as an American Roman Catholic, including 18 years of education in Roman Catholic institutions, and I am very much a product of Vatican 2.

What Bishop Jefferts Schori said about larger families of Roman Catholics, as contrasted with the size of Episcopalian families, is accurate. She did not even suggest, much less did she say, that the Roman Catholic Church was “natalist at any cost,” so I am greatly puzzled by SV2’s construction. Furthermore, I am personally aware – through friends and family - that there is a continued emphasis upon family growth for Roman Catholics, and that emphasis often dominates other concerns about the effects of population growth.

As to the Mormons, everything I have read indicates that they also have much larger families, though I would not pretend to understand their full structure of beliefs nor what, if any, pressures about family growth are placed upon their members.

It seems to me that yet another snippet of the Presiding Bishop’s words is being misused, and that begs the question, why?

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Monday, 27 November 2006 at 3:06am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.