Nobody asked for my opinion on current events, but here it is anyway:
• The saga of the “Connecticut Six” is one of the saddest in this Church’s recent history. While the meeting called by Bishop Andrew Smith with the clergy of the diocese [p. 7] probably was of value in helping people to understand the issues, there has to be a better way than to go the route of inhibition and deposition. Their loyalty to their bishop may be in question, but the six rectors have not broken communion as charged. They continue to preach and teach the faith as they always have. Whether or not these priests are disciplined, their relationships with their bishop will never be the same. Unfortunately, their fate may well be the same as clergy in the dioceses of Los Angeles, Lexington, and elsewhere who are no longer priests in good standing.
• The letters from a group of 21 American bishops to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Presiding Bishop speak clearly of the strife within the Episcopal Church. Their mention of “irreconcilable differences” is a frank admission of the seriousness of the matter, and their raising the need for “further and accurate information” regarding reactions to decisions made at the 2003 General Convention is welcome and hopeful. It was also encouraging to see that some bishops previously regarded as “fence-sitters” become signatories to the letters.
• In a letter written to the 21 bishops in response to their aforementioned letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold presents some of the clearest communication he has put forth since he became primate. It also offers some implausible remarks. He tells the bishops that it was “extremely discourteous” of them not to inform him that they had sent a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is difficult to believe that the Presiding Bishop was unaware of the letter to Canterbury before it showed up on TLC’s website. And since when did manners become important in this skirmish? Bishop Griswold also asks each bishop to let him have “some indication ... as to your own thinking at this time.” I would guess that most of us could go through the list of bishops who signed that letter and be able to identify their positions “at this time.” I’m surprised that our primate is unable to do that.
• The strategies of the House of Bishops and the Executive Council in responding to the recommendations of the Windsor Report are irritating. Both bodies said, in effect, OK, we’ve read your recommendations and can appreciate where you’re coming from, but we’re going to do this our way, thank you very much. The responses seem arrogant and condescending, and do little to improve the already tenuous relationships the Episcopal Church has with most of the rest of the Anglican Communion.
• The volume of letters and e-mails about the Reader’s Viewpoint article, “Is the Episcopal Church Anti-Semitic?” [TLC, Nov. 28], by Bishop Edward Little II of Northern Indiana, continues to grow, even months after its publication. It is now safe to say it has generated more feedback than any other article during my 14 years with TLC. It was apparently a long-simmering topic that people wanted to discuss. We haven’t heard the end of it.
• As I’ve admitted many times in this space, I tend to be on the naïve side, but I am nevertheless amazed and confounded seeing and hearing the amount of bashing of Benedict XVI being done by Episcopalians. It’s bad enough to see journalists going on the offensive, but most of them don’t know any better. Can’t we at least wait a few months and see what he does before taking shots at him? I prefer the stance taken by an Episcopalian friend who said, “Anyone who loves cats and Mozart can’t be all bad.”
David Kalvelage, executive editor
The URL for this story is:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/39/50/acns3953.cfm
Maintainer: Ted McMichael
Send Comments or Questions to:
theword@starpower.com