Comments: Church Times on the women bishops debate

The so-called 'traditionalists' do not up-hold traditional C of E faith and practice. They propose RC ideas - heaven knows why, as they have no love of Rome itself--do they ?

Posted by Pantycelyn at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 10:17am BST

Everyone should read the letter from Mavis Jacobs on the CT's letters column linked above. Utterly shocking. How on earth did the churl she describes ever slip past the selectors? I can't doubt the soundness of Mrs Jacobs' conclusion.

Not that I'd have a problem taking communion from a woman, please understand.

Posted by Dan at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 10:45am BST

Unexpectedly good column from Giles Fraser. Perhaps he's beginning to grow up.

Posted by John at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 11:40am BST

Canon Giles Fraser, once again, has his finger on the button of the reason for the collapse of 'Big Tent' Anglicanism. Puritanical fundamentalism is making its influence felt - to the point where the 'Reason' leg of the traditional 3-legged stool ethos of Anglicanism has been replaced by a 'sola scriptura' meanness of intolerance towards the wisdom of an open-ness to revelation as an ongoing reality in the modern world.

The fact of gender and sexuality provisionality is something that the world at large is able to adapt to, whereas the Church - as a largely 'flat-earth' constituency - is still lagging behind in the provision of a cohesive theology of the issues raised in this important field of human development. Closing one's eyes to the reality of life around us is hardly conducive to a climate of belief in the God of ALL creation - regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual-orientation.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 1:00pm BST

What utter tosh, Ron... what they are asserting is the traditional interpretation of Scripture and the understanding of the Church for 2000 years. just because you disagree with them, you name call them. Shame on you.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 4:49pm BST

I would encourage Giles Fraser to think a bit more deeply about the English and American Civil Wars--the first was religious and political and the second purely political, even if religious ideals were part of it. This is partly why Americans think of religion differently--we have never needed to be catholic in any sense for good or ill, but we have struggled democratically to stay together as a country. The C of E for better or worse is an established church which has a certain plurality for political reasons which gave rise to a profound spiritually inclusive path among the divisions of Christendom. But it paid a price for it and no use lying about the fragility and failure of the Elizabethan Settlement which led to civil war or the exclusions of 1662 or the radical denial of the Reformation among some Anglo Catholics in Oxford Movement and now the revival of fundamentalism. This present instability isn't new at all because it is all too easy for a party to pick up the virus of Christian exclusivism--and we liberals can also put our blend in with social progressivism. Without the centrifugal force of Establishment or Empire in Britain anymore, I am not sure at this point Anglicanism can find the theological weight as "big tent" when I think it was at heart a largely political ideal. I do hope we are part of the painful process and birth of a new theology and ecclesiology, but the future is to me as dark as it was to any of our ancestors.

Posted by Rebecca at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 4:49pm BST

RIW:

As I've said elsewhere, just because something was "understood" for a long time doesn't mean it was correct. For all but the last 700 or 800 years, mankind understood the earth to be the center of the universe.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 7:52pm BST

Maybe one sign of just how far out these No Go Women Zones in church life, along with the sincere and solemnly 'catholic' or 'scriptural' justifications, go is the excellent definitional flip-flop magic chemistry of conservative-traditionalist presupposition tools - allowing us to categorically yet deftly transform and relabel the callings-talents-gifts of women ... into threadbare tatters that will innately impoverish and endanger any believer who doesn't get to protect spirit and heart and mind and body from those awful tatters.

No harm intended or connoted towards the people (women) who actually bear or live out those callings-gifts-talents of course. No, none at all, at all. Back to Your momma, then, as the dice throwers say gleefully on the mean street corners.

Posted by drdanfee at Saturday, 17 July 2010 at 2:24am BST

I don't see that it's name-calling to simply point out that those who choose not to grow intellectually, morally, or spiritually have chosen not to grow so. It's, at best, a friendly rebuke.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Saturday, 17 July 2010 at 5:04am BST

Mark Brunson's last comment has to be among the most patronising I have heard. He clearly has all the answers, and when we are up against that kind of arrogant response, there is no room at all for compromise. The Archbishops valiantly attempted to come up with a solution that would have been palatable to a majority of the Synod (see Synod voting pattern), but if Mark Brunson represents the mind of some there, particularly in the house of clergy, there is no chance whatsoever of finding the via media that has hitherto been a positive in the history of the Church of England. Nevertheless, whatever Inclusive Church or WATCH or Affirming Catholics may claim, it is certainly not over, even now. Judging from the vote in the House of Bishops in favour of the amendment, and what went on in the House of Laity, there is still a chance, albeit small, that the measure could yet go down. Don't count your chickens before they hatch!

Posted by Benedict at Saturday, 17 July 2010 at 1:44pm BST

'the traditional interpretation of Scripture and the understanding of the Church for 2000 years'

I really don't think so.

When the Law Lords, bastions of precedent and tradition, and most certainly not a group noted for their radical ahead-of-the-trend approach, classify the Creationist fundamentalists of the Reform persuasion alongside the ultra-conservative interpretation of Islamic law that prevails in Iran, then there can be no doubt that the claim to be merely acting as tradition dictates is viewed as fictional.

The Justices of the Supreme Court, as their Lordships are now called, have an exceedingly long collective memory, as well as an unnerving capacity to ask the questions you really don't want to be asked; you cannot get away with waffle. Particularly not waffle which is flatly contradicted by scholarship; evidence matters...

Posted by chenier1 at Saturday, 17 July 2010 at 11:08pm BST

"the Creationist fundamentalists of the Reform persuasion"

Wait - there's a sizable contingent of Creationists in the CofE?

That really does explain a lot.

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 12:22am BST

I wonder if 'Benedict' and 'Robert Ian Williams' are at all embarrassed by the latest unwelcome pronouncement by the 'Holy See' - which likens the Ordination of Women as akin to the sin of paedophilia (about which, at least, Rome does know Something).

To equate - on any level - these two activities is to deny the Holy Spirit's wisdom in calling women into the ministry of the Anglican Church around the world - and constitutes a grave insult to our Church. In its sheer illogicality, this latest outrage from Rome must surely arouse the ire of women within its own ranks of the Church.

In the light of this latest onslaught by Rome on the integrity of the Church of England, and all other Anglican Churches which have rejoiced in, and benefitted from the ordination of women; it might be a convincing case for denying the current Bishop of Rome any sort of State Reception in England, when he makes his papal peregrination here. Better perhaps, even, for the British Govenment to deny him entry - on the grounds of being a subversive element.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 9:53am BST

Why should we be embarrassed Father Smith? You've fallen into the trap of believing everything you read in the media. I'm afraid I'm a bit more circumspect than that. And it really is a cheap shot, when you comment about the sin of paedophilia in the way that you do. As heinous as paedophilia may be, the Church of England herself has had more than her fair share of scandals in the past; none of us can take the high ground in terms of sin and our common need for redemption. And another point, you Liberals spend a huge amount of time telling us that the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with what the Church of England decides or believes. What now gives you the right to pronounce on the beliefs and tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, with respect to the ordination of women, or to make the case for preventing the state visit of the Pope? You can't have it all ways.

Posted by Benedict at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 1:13pm BST

"the 'Holy See' - which likens the Ordination of Women as akin to the sin of paedophilia"

Funny how this has so quickly become an unquestioned internet dogma. Sort of like how we all equate murder and making a pirate copy of "Star Wars" because they're both felonies.

I used to read these Anglican sites out of an ecumenical interest. But I think something new has happened in the last decade. For progressives, the Catholic Church is now the Enemy.

When I was growing up it was the fundamentalists, the Baptists and their brethren, who were always eager to mock the Scarlet Woman. It was Ian Paisley who always had a fit any time the pope was mentioned. Now it's the progressives who dream of humiliating the Catholics' chief pastor. Strange how attitudes shift.

Posted by rick allen at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 1:55pm BST

FAO Rick Allen
Couldn't have put it better myself Rick, and progressives like Father Smith have been getting away with it for far too long. Their wanton attacks on the Roman Catholic Church stem from nothing more than sheer, irrational bigotry, which is rather ironic in a sense, because it is that sort of accusation they often level at traditionalists in the Church of England. These have been labelled bigots more than once on this site. I have to say it is refreshing to see another individual on Thinking Anglicans who is willing to temper the excesses of some of the comments made, supposedly in the name of serious Christian and theological thought.

Posted by Benedict at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 2:55pm BST

Rick
"Sort of like how we all equate murder and making a pirate copy of "Star Wars" because they're both felonies."

But we do compare crimes who attract the same severe judgment, don't we? And there would be an outrage if making a pirate copy of Star Wars landed you in prison for as long as killing someone rightly does.

I think that's what many of us are saying here.

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 2:58pm BST

Rick Allen posted "I think something new has happened in the last decade. For progressives, the Catholic Church is now the Enemy."

Rick don't confuse current attitudes on the part of progressive Anglicans with old fashioned fundie "sign of the beast" anti-Roman Catholicism. Progressive Anglicans still have a regard, I think, for Catholic life and ethos. The problem is that the current reactionary sexual politics of Pope B-16, coupled with similar pressures from conservative Anglicans within our Communion, has resulted in progressive Anglicans feeling feisty and under siege. As for the equating of pedophilia with the "grave offense" of attempting to ordain women, my understanding is that this is intended for Catholics in a Catholic context.(Notwithstanding, making the connection shows a serious problem with judgment). There have been "underground" ordinations of women in the Catholic Church--I think that is what the Vatican is on about. Basically, progressive Anglicans are in much the same space as progressive Roman Catholics with regard to the official policy out of Rome. Finally, some of the progressive Anglicans are possibly ex-Roman Catholics and their presentation is colored by their personal experiences.

Posted by Rod Gillis at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 4:57pm BST

"Now it's the progressives who dream of humiliating the Catholics' chief pastor."

Whereas Roman Catholics, of course, always treat the leaders, discipline, and teachings of other religious communities with the utmost respect?

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 5:13pm BST

"But we do compare crimes who attract the same severe judgment, don't we?"

Erika, let me try to address your question in a little more detail. Please keep in mind I am neither a cleric nor an academic. All I know of Catholic canon law is what I have read in an old copy of the 1983 code, plus a little incidental reading here and there.

First, canon law is not moral theology. Canon law says nothing about the gravity of a sin. Canon law deals with the internal governance of the Church. Most sins are not mentioned in canon law, and I imagine there are plenty of norms in canon law that, being purely administrative, have no inherent moral component whatsoever. So it's important, first, to not mix apples and oranges, not make inferences about the gravity of sins from canonical classifications.

Second, any canon directed against the attempted ordination of women is obviously limited to the Church which the code governs. To read the headlines in conjunction with current events it would be understandable for the casual reader to assume that there was some sort of special anathema issuing against the American Episcopalians and the C of E synod, for ordaining women, or for preparing to do so. That's obviously not what is involved in an amendment of Catholic canon law. But then, who would run this headline: "Pope confirms ancient ordination norms with new canonical penalty"?

[Erika, since I think my original posting ran afoul of the "400 word" limit rule, this reply will continue in the next post.]

Posted by rick allenr at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 7:38pm BST

[to Erika, continued]

Third, it seems to me rather important, in the context of canon law, to know who is or who is not a priest. It's not important for non-Catholics, of course. But now that everybody's a "catholic," it can get confusing, and every now and then there's a bulletin announcement or a dispatch from the archdiocesan office stating that the newly formed "Charismatic Cathlic Church" up on fourth street or the "Liberal Catholic Church" in Rio Rancho is not part of the archdiocese or in communion with Rome. We Catholics are crazy enough to believe that clergy can do things that the laity cannot. So it can be important to know who is and who is not a priest.

Now, internally, those who claim, "I'm a Catholic priest just as much as Father so-and-so down at San Carlo Borromeo" are rather like those who, in secular law, claim to be police, when they are not, or who send out those official-looking letters making you think they're from the government, when in fact they're just a come-on to get you to refinance your house. It's clerical impersonation.

Now again, I understand, from the outside, that that sort of internal confusion might be welcome. But internally, now that there's an actual movement to purport to ordain women in clandestine ceremonies, something between confusion and schism is certainly on the horizon. So it's not so trivial a matter as some would suggest.

Posted by rick allen at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 7:40pm BST

Ron you've got to remember we don't see Anglican male priests as being valid either.

Rod Gillis.. Anti-catholicism comes in many forms..but our Lord warned it would.

For instance some of the worst anti-catholics are from the extremer branches of the Eastern orthodox.

Pat, I believe that the earth is the centre of the Universe.

God created the heavens and the earth.


Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 8:50pm BST

"You Liberals spend a huge amount of time telling us that the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with what the Church of England decides or believes. What now gives you the right to pronounce on the beliefs and tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, with respect to the ordination of women."

- Benedict, on Sunday -

Get your facts straight, Benedictus! My ire against your name-sake in the RC Church is merely representative of many Anglicans who have cause to accept and rejoice in the clerical ministry of women in our Provinces. We already know of the differences that exist between Ekklesia Anglicana and the Roman Catholic Church. That's why we are in a different place regarding the ordination of women.

The reason for our present argument with Rome is the bare-faced nerve of H.H. in comparing the ordination of women (in any way) with the sin of paedophilia. I was merely stating that Rome does know something about paedophilia, whereas, from the Pope's statement, he obviously has no idea at all about the Anglican process of discernment for the ordination of women. Nor, obviously, has he bothered to check in with what the the Holy Spirit might have to say about the charism and grace of women in Holy Orders.

Mine was no knee-jerk reaction to any 'beat-up' by journalists - rather a natural reaction to the insulting arrogance of a faith-leader who ought to know better than to further denounce the legal ordination process of an ARCIC partner.

So much for 'ecumenical outreach' on Rome's part!

The situation is reminiscent of Paul's need to put Peter right about his reluctance to grow out of resistance to change in the Early Church.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 11:20pm BST

"For progressives, the Catholic Church is now the Enemy."

*An* enemy, abso-freakin-lutely.

It's funny how an institution spending millions of dollars to ***BAN me from ever marrying*** will prompt that sort of antipathy, Rick. >:-(

[Yes, yes: the Mormons are my enemy, too. But I lived in Michigan when the marriage ban was passed there in 2004. The Detroit Archdiocese was *overwhelmingly* the largest single contributor, and there's comparatively few Mormons there.]

God help me, I *try* to "turn the other cheek" to those who are bigoted against me. But if you don't want me to consider your Church to be my enemy, then you know what to do (and lecturing *me* ain't it).

Posted by JCF at Monday, 19 July 2010 at 5:47am BST

RIW:

How do you reconcile that belief with the images from the Hubble telescope, with pictures from space travelers? If the earth is the center of the universe, why does it orbit the sun?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Monday, 19 July 2010 at 12:17pm BST

Re Robert Ian Williams "Rod Gillis.. Anti-catholicism comes in many forms..but our Lord warned it would. Pat, I believe that the earth is the centre of the Universe."

Actually, Jesus had no idea there would eventually be something which we call the Catholic Church, but thanks for clearing up the matter about the center of the universe.

Posted by Rod Gillis at Monday, 19 July 2010 at 1:15pm BST

FA O RON SMITH
So has the Church of England a monopoly on the Holy Spirit now? Who's to say that it isn't the prompting of the Holy Spirit encouraging Roman Catholics and Orthodox, by far the largest of Christian denominations, to continue resisting the ordination of women. It's surely arrogance of the greatest order to suggest otherwise. And it's more than a little illiberal.

Posted by Benedict at Monday, 19 July 2010 at 3:29pm BST

"Ron you've got to remember we don't see Anglican male priests as being valid either."

- Robert Ian Williams -

Robert, I do think it's time you 'came out' as an ex Anglican Theolog-in-training in New Zealand who now, yourself, rejoice in lay membership of the Roman Church. This might explain your current attitude towards the validity of priests in the Anglican Church. There are many ways of being anonymous on web-sites, and one of them is even more subtle than hiding your real name - it consists in not revealing your true provenance. However, those of us who have followed your constant put-downs of the Anglican Communion on this (and other) sites, do recognise your true affiliation. I would just like newcomers to know where you are coming from. It helps to clear the air.

Benedict, also, should realise that Rick Ellis is a Roman Catholic. That puts his demeaning remarks about Anglicanism into its proper perspective. Both Robert and Rick have an axe to grind on this site - as militant R.C.s.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 19 July 2010 at 6:37pm BST

Well I would prefer to think that the pope's reputation is pretty much according to what the pope says he thinks, believes, preaches, and/or practices.

In these regards, laterly, B-16 hasn't been doing nothing but good, good, good, good. He repeats a religious anthropology which deliberately mistakes both gender and sexual orientation - neither domain known empirically to us and among us, in much the same ways that it was thought known to and among most educated ancient near eastern citizens or believers. Just because we cannot read modern data about gender and/or sexual orientation, right plainly from our scriptures, is supposed to settle cases. But it did not settle cases such as Galileo and Copernicus; and I see few signs it can settle cases when it comes to anything like an empirically informed view of gender and/or sexual orientation. Mistaking embodiment is hardly a royal road to godliness.

Women need B-16 like fish need bicycles, or some such?

Posted by drdanfee at Monday, 19 July 2010 at 7:47pm BST

Father Smith, it is impossible to have any degree of reasonable discussion with you. You are so dogmatic, and I do wonder whether others have accused you of such before. I am aware of a priest sharing your name who was taken to task by his area Bishop for the publication of an article in his parish magazine in the nineties, again about the ordination of women, and again for the strident way in which it was presented. If that is yourself - and I am not suggesting for one minute it is, as you may not even reside in Britain - have you ever stepped back from your posturing to take stock and imagine for a split second that you could be wrong concerning any of those matters you so vehemently proselytise about on this site? As a traditionalist, yes, I "BELIEVE" the ordination of women to be very questionable in terms of my theological understanding. However, I accept that there are those who differ from my view, and that their convictions are just as strong as mine. What I am not willing to accept is a constant denigration and misrepresentation of the traditionalist position in the way that you seem to take so much pleasure in offering on Thinking Anglicans.

Posted by Benedict at Monday, 19 July 2010 at 10:58pm BST

"So has the Church of England a monopoly on the Holy Spirit now? Who's to say that it isn't the prompting of the Holy Spirit encouraging Roman Catholics and Orthodox, by far the largest of Christian denominations, to continue resisting the ordination of women. It's surely arrogance of the greatest order to suggest otherwise. And it's more than a little illiberal."

Which is why the proper response to either position is probably "I'm not sure...." We can be reasonably certain that each of us believes to be hearing the true voice of the Spirit, but we cannot be certain that either of us really is.

I accept that Catholics (Roman and otherwise) like yourself, Benedict, truly believe the Spirit is telling them to resist women's ordination. Do you accept that those, like me, who support WO truly believe the Spirit is speaking to us? For that matter, is it at all possible, that the Spirit really is speaking to both of us...but that neither of us is hearing the whole message?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Tuesday, 20 July 2010 at 2:16am BST

For Benedict, who seems to imagine that Fr. Ron Smith is "dogmatic" (while Benedict, of course, must not be), you are so wrong about Fr. Smith.

Fr. Smith has been a prolific and well-reasoned poster to this site, to the enlightenment of many, and he has done it largely with temperate style, rarely departing from temperance and only after after encountering disingenuous and hurtful comments by some malcontents.

You also have little idea about him, as he resides in New Zealand (as any long-time reader of this site would know).

Your backhanded slur, of taking his very common name and applying some nonsense about a similarly-named priest in England "in the nineties," was way out of line.

You seem to be part of a recent influx of posters to this site who are either covert RC's, or want-to-be RC's, or threatening to become RC's (if you don't get your way), as well as some non-admirers of Rome with the exception of their hierarchy-imposed barriers to the ordination of women.

Given a choice between the words and attitudes of Fr. Smith, or those whose hatreds are coming to fore now that the artificial barriers are coming down, I have no doubt where people of good will should turn.

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Tuesday, 20 July 2010 at 3:49am BST

Rick
"We Catholics are crazy enough to believe that clergy can do things that the laity cannot. So it can be important to know who is and who is not a priest."

Thank you for your explanations.
The real question for me is WHY someone who ordains a woman is suddenly "not a priest", instead of being a priest who made a mistake, or who was disobedient, and needs to be disciplined.

And even if it seems right to defrock someone who ordains women, it is yet another step to excommunicate them.

I still struggle to see how the punishment can possibly fit the crime.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 20 July 2010 at 6:36am BST

"Father Smith, it is impossible to have any degree of reasonable discussion with you. You are so dogmatic" - Benedict, on Monday -

Only one response comes to mind - 'Pot & Kettle'

Thanks. Jerry, for your kind support. Benedict in so like his name-sake in another jursidiction - where dogmatism is an inescapable way of life - that I think he simply does not realise just how lacking in true objectivity he, himself, appears to be on this site. One gets used to selective judgement from fellow bloggers. However, it's good to know there are still some people who want to contribute to the enlightenment of other well-meaning and loyal 'Thinking Anglicans'.

en Christo, Fr. Ron

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 20 July 2010 at 11:23am BST

"The real question for me is WHY someone who ordains a woman is suddenly "not a priest", instead of being a priest who made a mistake, or who was disobedient, and needs to be disciplined."


Eh? They do remain a priest. The sacrament of Holy Orders, like baptism, is indelible. To say otherwise is to propound Donatism.

Simulation of a sacrament is blasphemy and in the context of the purported ordination of women also heresy. That is why the penalty is excommunication.

Posted by Conchúr at Tuesday, 20 July 2010 at 12:07pm BST

Conchúr
Not being Roman Catholic or even Anglo Catholic I don't really understand any of this. That's why I'm asking.

So are you saying you end up having excommunicated Catholic priests who are somehow still priests but no longer members of the Catholic church?

But that means that, to all intent and purposes, they're not priests any longer, doesn't it?
Or would they still be able to say Mass, pronounce Absolution etc?

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 20 July 2010 at 5:47pm BST

Mr Hannon, if you read more carefully what I had to say about Father Smith, you will indeed see that I was not sure of his identity. I admitted as much in my blog. And at no point did I use or imply the word "hate". I "hate" no one. I may disagree with their views, as much as they might with mine, but your implication that this is hatred is frankly over the top and rather defensive. As to your suggestion that Father Smith is "temperate" in the language he sometimes uses, I would have to say that this depends on your reading of him. You are clearly a huge fan of his and have not had to deal with some of the intemperate language he has sometimes delivered to traditionalists on this site.

Posted by Benedict at Tuesday, 20 July 2010 at 10:04pm BST

Well, Benedict, I would think you like having someone with all the answers - like a pope, for instance, or a magisterium.

You and those like you choose to put your own intellectual and moral development on hold for a feeling of security. That's fine. It's a choice and a valid one for you.

What is not valid is complaining when that is recognized by others and refused as workable for them.

If you feel patronized, given your belief system, you can take that as a sign of love.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 21 July 2010 at 6:23am BST

Mr. Benedict, you very clearly did not carefully read what I wrote, in that I did not accuse you, personally, of hatred.

In fact, only the first, third, and fourth sentences of my post relate directly to you personally.

Yo be more precise, within the four categories of WO-opponents which I identified, we have witnessed an increasing number of hateful posts; but even that does not mean that posts from all of those four categories of individuals have expressed those hateful statements. Some have.

However, as to your disavowal of the effect of your slur, as unintended because you admitted, up front within your original comment, that Fr. Ron Smith (of New Zealand) might not be the Fr. Ron Smith (of England) "in the nineties", I consider that similar in style to one in which a poster might say, in a post about a Fr. So-and-so, that "I am aware of a priest sharing your name who was taken to task by his area Bishop for failing to take action against paedophile priests assigned to his parish."

That comment had no reason to be made, and it simply allowed some readers to either subconsciously, or consciously but imperfectly, associate the person you were criticizing with a distasteful action - by somebody else - over ten years ago.

Either you were careless in allowing Fr. Smith's name to be so maligned, or deliberate. I will accept, based upon your follow-up, that it was not deliberate.

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Wednesday, 21 July 2010 at 6:40am BST

Mark Brunson

I think it's in your DNA to make patronising statements, judging from your last post. It is certainly not a sign of love, so please don't offer it in that way. I have not "put my moral and intellectual development on hold", as you suggest. That is surely patronising in itself, as you are implicitly attempting to put your own position and argument at a higher level. My own approach to this whole question, as I've intimated elsewhere, is that I have a certain view. You have yours. I would certainly not wish to undermine you or your belief system by denigrating your capacity for intellectual reasoning, just because we disagree on substance.

Posted by Benedict at Wednesday, 21 July 2010 at 10:23am BST

I didn't denigrate your capacity for intellectual reasoning - I said you made a choice that was valid for you. A choice, Benedict. A choice. Your reasoning is flawed, certainly, but that does not mean you're functionally incapable, just erring.

You have - regardless of your protestations - denigrated the spiritual and intellectual capacity of those who oppose your view, then get a bit hysterical when held to account for your view in a public forum. Perhaps you would be more comfortable if you expressed your views privately, among like minds only?

Finally, are you saying that love does *not* hold one to account for one's flaws? Perhaps what you mistake for "patronising" is merely a clearer vision of the whole argument.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Friday, 23 July 2010 at 5:05am BST
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.