SinnerDIALING IT DOWN
How likely is it that the Americans and Canadians will be shown the door at the upcoming Lambeth Conference? How likely is it that a united conservative/Global South front will emerge that will demand that the Archbishop of Canterbury declare the Canadian and US responses to the Windsor Report to be completely unacceptable and that both churches were expelled from the Anglican Communion until such time as both decided to respect Anglican teaching?
Short answer: not very. For one thing, Rowan Williams couldn't countenance an action that flies in the face of everything he has ever written and spoken on the subject and continue to show his face in polite European society. Even if he did, a large segment of the Church of England would rebel. Assuming the Archbishop of York stayed put, the liberal C of E bishops, along with western Europe, South Africa and Central and South America would join the US and Canada to form the Episcopal Communion the very next day.
(Which brings up an interesting side question: would Mrs. Schori become, for all practical purposes, an "archbishop?" Would the Americans get the primacy of such a group? They'd have a good claim on it. After all, the Episcopal Organization could point out, because of its leadership, it's taken the bulk of the abuse for the last five years.
And as Willie Sutton would have put it if he'd cared about Anglican Christianity, TEO is where the money is. If push comes to shove, I think Mrs. Schori would be wise to turn such a position down but I also think that many in TEO do not want to be put in a position where they'd possibly have to take orders from Third Worlders ever again.)
The other reason why I don't think a permanent split is likely at Lambeth is that the Global South doesn't need it as much as western conservatives do. When you get right down to it, all men like Peter Akinola, Henry Orombi, Emmanuel Kolini and Gregory Venables really have to do is withdraw themselves from Anglican affairs for a while.
They can respond favorably to US and Canadian parishes who request their oversight knowing that it will cost them little or nothing. As important as their American and Canadian parishes or diocese are, these men realize that their primary responsibility is the Anglicans of their own dioceses, which is as it should be.
So I think that the most western conservatives should hope for out of Lambeth is a suspension of TEO and the AOiC. Of course, even that might prompt the liberals to wash their hands of Canterbury which wouldn't be that big a deal for them since historical rationalization is embedded in Anglican DNA.
But all that gets Anglicans in the pews to the basic question. Do you still want to be part of a church that is connected to TEO, even if that connection is only theoretical and has little or no impact on your parish? Or is it time to make a complete and final break with the Anglican tradition?
I've been asking myself that question a lot lately.
EQUAL TIME
I pile on leftist Episcopal goofballs a lot here so it's only fair that leftist Catholic goofballs occasionally get some attention. Don't want 'em to feel left out.
Via Uncle Di comes word of a recent West Coast conference of a LibCat group named Call to Action. How prog are these people? There's a link to an article by Spong on their web site. And the concluding service(unlike Di, I won't dignify this by calling it a liturgy) started off with a Buddhist meditation "to set mood for Mass."
But wait, there's more. Somebody thought it would be a good idea to make a video of this thing. According to Di, if you can last longer than the first couple of minutes, "your stomach is stronger than mine." I actually found it funny but I'm used to liturgical abominations.
If you want to watch this, a word of warning. It contains liturgical dancing. I don't know about you but I would prefer to have the celebrant repeatedly hit me over the head with a crucifix than to have to endure women(and men in this particular case) prancing up and down the aisles of the worship space.
But that's just me. Anyhoo, this video contains one feature that has to put it in the conversation for inclusion on the list of all-time greatest worship atrocities.
Giant papier-mâché puppets of doom.
UPDATE: For those of you who haven't been able to see the giant papier-mâché puppets of doom in action yet(since the original link is now dead) but still want to, somebody posted edited highlights at YouTube.
HOME STRETCH
Bob Duncan and Henry Scriven are going to Lambeth:
Bishops Robert Duncan and Henry Scriven confirmed today that they will be attending both the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jordan and Jerusalem in June and the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in Kent, England, this July and August.
"After consulting with the people of Pittsburgh and our friends around the globe, we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary for us to be present at both gatherings," said Bishop Robert Duncan.
Both bishops believe it is important that the diocese be represented throughout the Lambeth Conference, if for no other reason than to provide an alternative perspective on the situation in The Episcopal Church. "Those who accuse us of abandoning the Anglican Communion will certainly be present and vocal. It is important for us to be able to respond directly to their claims about the situation in The Episcopal Church and our place in the Communion," added Bishop Duncan. As with the Global Anglican Future Conference, both Pittsburgh bishops will also work to strengthen missionary partnerships with bishops from every corner of the world.
The risk in their going, though, is that without Akinola, Orombi and Kolini to exert some pressure at the primatial level, the odds of +Iker and +Duncan being able to engineer a takeover of the agenda are slim at best. Of course, we don’t know that that’s even their intention, which raises the question: Short forcing Lambeth to deal with the problem, is there a point at all for them to go?
I've said over and over that the only reason conservative bishops should attend Lambeth is to demand that the American/Canadian question be settled, will Dr. Williams or nil he, and to walk out of the Conference and get on with the work of the Gospel if any more delays are suggested.
But is that likely to happen? That's hard to say but I wouldn't put any money on it. Right now, I see three possible scenarios for how this thing might play out in the next few months and none of them are particularly encouraging.
(1) At GAFCON, the conservative bishops and primates who have stated that they will not attend Lambeth are convinced to change their minds. The conservatives go to Lambeth, present a united front, declare that the US and Canada are not in compliance with the Windsor Report or anything else and demand that the Canadian/American problem be solved right then and there or the conservatives will call it a meeting.
Faced with the destruction of the Anglican Communion in front of the international media, Dr. Williams informs the Americans and Canadians that until such time as the entire Anglican world declares them in compliance with the Windsor Report, he has no choice but to ask them to leave and to suspend them from Anglican affairs until such time as they are declared in compliance.
Likelihood - Negligible. Dr. Williams and the rest of the Anglican establishment have spent the last five years either whitewashing the evasions of Church House and 815 or avoiding making any kind of decision at all(see, well, the Windsor Report). There's no reason to suggest that this year will be any different.
(2) Dr. Williams calls the conservative bluff and suggests more yammering. The conservatives, including the Americans and Canadians, walk out, the Anglican world splits apart and a strong, vigorous conservative Anglican body is formed centered around Abuja, Kampala or Sydney.
Likelihood - Given that Bob Duncan doesn't sound like a man who thinks that an Anglican split is on the table and given that, despite Cardinal Kasper's encouraging words of the other day, Rome apparently still believes that Canterbury is the only Anglican game in town, this might be more likely than (1) but only marginally.
(3) The Anglican Communion continues to muddle through. Some conservatives attend Lambeth, others don't and the Conference is basically a waste of time papered over with minority reports and open letters. After the Conference, an amorphous Opposition gradually springs up which continues to attract parishes and the odd diocese or two which will outrage of Church House and 815,
Both of whom will essentially begin officially treating the Windsor Report and the various primates statements as the toilet paper we all know they have always considered them to be. In other words, nothing changes at all except for more same-sex marriages here and there and another homosexual bishop or two.
Likelihood - Probable. Which is where this stops being primarily a diocesan or parochial matter and starts being a personal one. I spent the first 48 years of my earthly existence in the Anglican tradition so walking away has not been as easy as some people think it should be and for that reason, I have given it many more chances than I probably should have.
But faced with the prospect of this business dragging on indefinitely, I, for one, plan to finally call a halt. If conservatives will not ACT this year, they will never act. And if they do not act this year, the possibility of their ever acting at all becomes progressively more difficult even if they finally decide to.
Conservatives know what they need to do. So if they don't do anything this year, if I'm asked to once again "wait a litle longer," I'm done and I suspect a great many other loyal Anglicans will finally be as well. When conservatives finally do get around to acting, if they ever do, they may find that there are a whole lot fewer people left in their pews.
It's now or never.
CHOOSE THIS DAY
Walter Kasper bottom-lines it for the Anglicans:
The Vatican has said that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.
Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to "clarify its identity".
He told the Catholic Herald: "Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?
"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions."
He said he hoped that the Lambeth conference, an event which brings the worldwide Anglican Communion together every 10 years, would be the deciding moment for Anglicanism.
Cardinal Kasper, who has been asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: "We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.
"We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis."
Sound advice. Will the Anglicans take it? Of course not. Anglicans are Protestants whether they like it or not. But the via media fiction is too embedded in the Anglican identity. And since, as we have seen, the principal raison d'être of the Anglican Communion is to avoid making "certain difficult decisions," the idea that they'll settle this question any time soon is too ridiculous to contemplate.
GOING YARD
In their attempts to clear the Episcopal Organization of the charge of violating its own canons in order depose William Cox and John-David Schofield, many on the Episcopal left, including Mrs. Schori herself, have fallen back on the following. "I know how the canon reads," they say. "But we did it this way in this case and that one and no one complained." In an addendum to the previous memorandum listing Mrs. Schori's numerous canonical violations, the author of that memo jacks that "defense" into the left-field seats:
A defense now proffered by the Presiding Bishop and her supporters is that the same procedures were followed in the recent cases of Bishops Davies and Moreno. Past violations of the canon’s clear provisions are said to justify current ones. In considering this defense, it is necessary to distinguish three senses of “precedent” in legal usage. One is the well-known sense of precedent as a formal ruling on a legal issue by a competent juridical body. This is clearly not the case here as no one has suggested that the prior cases were determined to be canonical by any body reviewing the canonical issues. These cases are not offered as reasoned legal rulings, but as a fait accompli.
A second sense of precedent is that in which the actions of parties to a contract are used to interpret terms that are vague or ambiguous. In civil law this concept is referred to as “course of performance,” and this type of precedent is often used as an aid to interpretation for vague or ambiguous contractual terms such as those relating to timeliness or quality. For example, terms like “promptly” or “standard grade” are ones that can sometimes be interpreted by the parties’ performance. The applicability of this principle can be seen in the present context by noting that the meaning of the vague term “forthwith” in Canon IV.9 is given meaning by the Presiding Bishop’s own action in giving notice to Bishop Schofield within 48 hours of receiving the certification from the Review Committee. But the requirements of inhibition in IV.9 and for consent by a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote are not vague or ambiguous terms. They are expressed in mandatory language using precise terms that are clearly defined and used elsewhere in the canons. Express terms control when in conflict with arguable interpretations based on prior actions.
The third type of precedent is one that is often encountered in commercial litigation and corporate law. This is when clear contractual or legal duties are repeatedly violated. Here the past misconduct is to no avail absent an explicit waiver. Especially relevant to the current context is a pattern familiar to any corporate lawyer: that of a closely-held corporation that does not follow its own bylaws. Such corporations, owned by one or a small number of shareholders, have many of the same duties in terms of corporate formalities and procedural regularity as public corporations traded on national stock exchanges. Corporate law requires that proper procedures be followed in order for an enterprise to receive legal recognition and protection as a corporation. Often the sole shareholder of a corporation pays no attention to these formalities or the requirements of the corporate bylaws. The business is simply run as the shareholder sees fit.
But when the litigation arises and a hostile party asks the court to disregard the corporate form and permit a suit directly against the shareholder, those past “precedents” of ignoring the corporate rules are to no avail. In fact, the naked “we’ve done it this way before” becomes evidence for the other side, the primary evidence that the corporate form is a sham. The frequent result in such cases is that the law disregards the corporate form --it “pierces the corporate veil”-- and the shareholder’s assets are no longer protected as intended by the corporation. Corporations that seek the law’s recognition must follow the legal requirements and their own rules. Past malfeasance is not a defense; to the contrary it is proof of a pattern of abuse that exacerbates the current violation. It is a supreme irony that Bishop Lamb is now petitioning the California courts to defer to TEC’s polity and recognize him as the bishop of San Joaquin when the clear provisions of TEC’s canons indicate Bishop Schofield has not been lawfully deposed.
And if you're wondering why no names have yet been released in connection with the original memorandum and this addendum to it, a commenter at Kendall's explains:
The reason is attorney-client privilege, Brian. The recipient of the memo has released the memo’s contents and waived the privilege as to that, but by redacting the name(s) of the author(s), the client is signalling that he/she/it does not waive any privilege with regard to the rest of the entire engagement which resulted in this Memo (and its Addendum, linked above).
Mad props to the Anglican Communion Institute for making this material available. But who asked for these memoranda? The ACI? Conservative bishops? If the ACI commissioned this, they are to be commended for laying the facts out before the Anglican public.
But if it was conservative bishops, they would seem to have all they need to proceed against Mrs. Schori. So why haven't they? Are they holding their fire, waiting to move until just before the Lambeth Conference in order to inflict the maximum amount of damage on Mrs. Schori and the left going into the Conference itself?
Or is this yet another display of conservative Anglican inertia, the expectation that somebody else will do something? As I stated before, I don't think a presentment will go anywhere but I think one needs to be brought forward. Are the bishops waiting for somebody to do their work for them?
I honestly don't know. I suspect that the first possibility is what's going on but the latter, alas, wouldn't surprise me.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AT LAMBETH?
Short answer. Not this:
In his video address, Dr. Williams said he hoped Lambeth would not be “a time when we are being besieged by problems that need to be solved and statements that need to be finalised, but a time when people feel that they are growing in their ministry.”
Lambeth will be a place where “bishops learn how to be better bishops. And because of what we believe about the Church overall, we believe that bishops learn to be better bishops when they are learning from one another.”
“At the heart of the whole Anglican Communion is relationship,” Dr. Williams said. “We have never been a body that is bound together by firm and precise rules and that is often, as it is at the moment, a matter of some real concern and some confusion in our life as a communion.”
To put it bluntly, conservative Anglicans who attend the Lambeth Conference need to inform my gracious lord of Canterbury that the problem of the Canadians and the Americans is going to be solved, or be put on its way to being solved, at the Conference. Indeed Dr. Williams needs to be informed that the Canadians and Americans will be the first and, if necessary, the only order of business, regardless of His Grace's plans.
If the Archbishop attempts to stall or temporize in any way, he needs to be quickly brought back onside with the information that either the Can/Am problem will be solved or His Grace will preside over the death of the Anglican Communion in front of the whole world insofar as the conservatives will shake Canterbury's dust from their feet right then and there. And then, if need be, conservative Anglicans should walk out of the Conference and be prepared to never come back.
Anything other than that and the Anglican game is over. For my part, I'm not going to waste any more time on these people.
CAMERA SHY
Good morning. I'm Tim Russert and this is Meet the Press. The intersection of faith and American politics is always complicated. What is a faith issue, what is a political issue and when do the two overlap? Here to discuss his new book on the subject is...OH FOR THE LOVE OF...Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, for some reason.
Hi, Tim.Damn it, I thought I told you people to keep an eye out for this clown!!What?Nothing. So I hear you've got a new book out or something.That's right, Tim. It's called The Saint Who Walks Among Us, er, uh, In the Eye of the Storm and it concerns my...Yeah, whatever. Bishop, I guess the first question that needs to be asked is how you...
Tim? Tim?WE ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. PLEASE STAND BY.Oh. Uh. Okay. Listen, Tim, you don't happen to know how long this is going to take, do you? I have a speaking engagement at St. John the Divine later this morning.WE ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING TECHNICAL DIFFCULTIES THAT WILL TAKE AT LEAST THREE OR FOUR HOURS TO FIX AND THAT'S IF WE'RE LUCKY. BUT A GUY WE KNOW JUST E-MAILED US THAT HE THOUGHT HE HEARD SOMEONE SAY THAT ONE OF SCHIEFFER'S GUESTS BAILED. THE FACE THE NATION STUDIOS ARE RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. GO OUT THE DOOR AND HANG A RIGHT.
Welcome to Face the Nation. I'm Bob Schieffer. Will Barack Obama's long-time association with controversial Chicago minister Jeremiah Wright doom his chances with the middle American electorate? Here to discuss this and other questions is...Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson?!Hi, Bob. Actually, I'm here to discuss my new book Not Only Way More Important Than Gandhi But Still Alive: The Gene Robinson Story, I mean, In the Eye of the Storm. Tim Russert suggested that I drop by.I swear to God, I'm kicking Russert's ass up one side and down the other, that gutless little piece of...Come again, Bob?Nothing. Control booth? We're going to Plan B.What's Plan B?Technical stuff. Bishop, I suppose the first thing that everybody wants to know about you is...
THE CBS TELEVISION NETWORK CONCLUDES ITS BROADCAST DAY. AND NOW, OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM.
"Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light..."That's weird. It's only 9:30 in the morning.
Next on Binghamton Public Access Cable. Anglican Talk with your host, Matt Kennedy.
Hello. On today's show, we look at the effect of the Internet on the Anglican controversy. My guests are, from Mississippi, the chairman-and-CEO of Stand Firm, my boss and my friend Greg Griffith.
Thanks for having me, Matt.And from out in Missouri, the Senior Editor and Publisher of the Midwest Conservative Journal, Chris Johnson.
Well, gee whiz, thanks for invitin' me on your great program there, Matt.Happy to have you. Greg, some on the Episcopal left have charged that the Internet has driven the current controversy. Your response?Well, Matt, that's true to a certain extent but also an oversimplification. For starters...Sorry, I'm late, Matt. My driver couldn't find a parking place for the limo.You have got to be kidding me.Holy crap, the man can smell a camera from three states away!Bishop Robinson. What a...surprise. Are you here to talk about your new book How's My Statue Coming Along And No, I Don't Know Who's Going To Play Me in the Movie But Thanks for Asking?Actually, Matt, it's called In the Eye of the Storm.I stand corrected. Bishop, I've got one question. How can...
A MESSAGE FROM THE EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM. A SASHIMI WARNING HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE EASTERN UNITED STATES FROM THE ATLANTIC COAST TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. PERSONS IN THE AFFECTED AREA SHOULD TAKE SHELTER IMMEDIATELY AND KEEP TUNED TO THE EBS AFFILIATE IN THEIR AREA. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.So much for the show.I'm out of here.Wait! Where are you going?!Where the hell do you think we're going?!! Home!! To be with our families!!With any kind of luck.But we haven't talked about my important new book.Screw your important new book!!I'm going to pretend I didn't hear that.
Pretend all you want to, moron! But didn't you freaking hear? SASHIMI!! Matt? Greg? I'll be praying for you...for you...for you...guys and your families and stuff. I'll be...I'll be...Oh God, I can't do this anymore!! I have to go!!Vince? Kill it.
Hello? Is anyone there? Hello?
O. K. CORRAL
To the consternation of some, Jack Iker's going to Lambeth:
Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth confirmed May 2 on the diocesan website that he has accepted the invitation from Archbishop of Canterbury to attend the Lambeth Conference in England this summer.
“I stand in solidarity with all those bishops who have decided, as a matter of conscience, that they are unable to be at Lambeth,” he said. “However, given the situation the diocese of Fort Worth finds itself in with the unfolding realignment that is taking place in Anglicanism, I think it is important for me to be there to make our case and to face our detractors.”
The announcement noted that in addition to demonstrating a willingness to work with the Instruments of Communion for the unity of the Church, Bishop Iker believes it is important for him to be present to defend orthodox believers who are being accused of abandonment of communion by the Presiding Bishop and other leaders of The Episcopal Church (TEC).
“We need to refute the claims that the leadership of this church is trying to accommodate us and provide a secure place for us, and we need to testify to the fact that TEC is not in compliance with the Windsor Report or the requests made of TEC by the Primate’s Meeting in Dar es Salaam,” he said.
In principle, I'm not opposed to this idea. If the final confrontation's going to come, what better place for it to come than on Anglicanism's biggest stage in front of the maximum amount of press coverage?
Provided, of course, that it does come. Conservatives need to realize that Lambeth is their last chance. Either something is done about the liberal Americans and Canadians at the Lambeth Conference or nothing is ever going to be done and conservatives need to walk away.
Because if this thing is prolonged any more, that's what a lot of us in the pews are going to do. Forever. No more stalling, no more "important Anglican events." There are some things infinitely more important than a Canterbury connection.
FORLORN HOPE
Let's get one thing straight. Airtight as the case against her might be, Mrs. Schori isn't going anywhere. There is no "independent judiciary" in the Episcopal Organization. If a presentment is lodged against the Presiding Bishop, it will be judged by people she has appointed.
Add to this the facts that she(or the person who actually wrote her recent letter to the bishops) has, for all practical purposes, taken it upon herself to decide what the canons mean. "The canon is read that a quorum be present and a majority of all bishops present who are entitled to vote consent to the deposition, as was done in the case of Bishop Davies of Fort Worth in the 1990s and Bishop Larrea of Ecuador Central in 2005," Gracie?
I wasn't speeding. Many people have driven faster than thirty miles an hour on this road without getting a ticket. Therefore, that speed limit sign is to be read as more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule. So stick that ticket where the sun don't shine, Officer.
Funny thing is that there seem to be many on the Episcopal left who basically accept this line of reasoning and who would, truth to tell, have cheered if the Presiding Bishop had peremptorily told the bishops that the canons don't apply to her because she doesn't want them to.
An Anglican pope may be a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad thing but an Episcopal pope is just dandy, thank you very much.
So is a presentment a waste of time? No doubt. Should it be pursued anyway? Absolutely. Because to do nothing would be to tacitly accept Mrs. Schori's arguments.
To save all this for secular courts would be to go all-in with 4-3 off-suit. It seems to me that courts would be extremely reluctant to take on a case where they were asked to decide what a Christian church's canons meant and who, therefore, was the legal bishop of what.
The spectacle of the head of an Anglican province in the dock for canon violations would be a public-relations nightmare for the Episcopal Organization, would send the left into paroxysms of white-hot rage and would be an edifying spectacle for some of us and might just be an awakening moment for others.
It's not hard to imagine the Camp Allen bishops finally realizing what an unmitigated disaster Katharine Jefferts Schori has been for the Episcopal Organization. Even if the Presiding Bishop was not removed from office, Episcopal moderates would demonstrate to Mrs. Schori that a sizable bloc of bishops no longer trusts her.
Who am I kidding? It is not only hard to imagine, it is impossible to imagine.
After all, these are the same men and women who rolled over and played dead at New Orleans. Any bishop who voted for a presentment might as well fly home and suggest to the next diocesan convention that it begin work on selecting a bishop coadjutor. Kate would certainly never forgive this bishop and the Episcopal left would make a point of making this person's life a living hell.
Despite all that, a presentment needs to be brought. Either that or conservative Anglicans need to walk away from the Episcopalians and take their chances in the courts. And I don't mean after we all see how the Lambeth Conference shakes out. I mean right now.
KEEN GRASP OF THE OBVIOUS WATCH
Nothing, and I mean nothing, escapes the hawk-like vision of the Anglican Communion Institute:
Three events in the recent past have posed a serious question. Does the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC) know what she is doing? The possible answers to this question have raised even greater concern than the question itself. For, I have concluded, if, on the one hand, she does not know what she is doing then TEC is without effective leadership at perhaps the most crucial time in its history. If, on the other hand, she does know what she is doing, she is leading TEC in directions for which she has no warrant.
To be specific, her decline of an invitation to greet the Pope on his present visit calls into question her understanding of the office of Presiding Bishop. The canonical irregularities surrounding the specially called convention in the Diocese of San Joaquin and the actions to depose Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan raise questions about the way in which she understands and deploys the Constitution and Canons of TEC. Finally, her Easter Message to TEC raises a question about the adequacy of her grasp of the Christian Gospel.The specific violations laid at the feet of the Presiding Bishop are reasonably well known so I will list briefly only a few. In violation of Articles IV and II.3 of the Constitution and in repudiation of her duty under Canon I.2.4 (a) (3) she refused to recognize the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin. In violation of Article II.3 she appointed representatives and vicars in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Without the consent of the House of Bishops as required by Canon IV.9.2 she deposed Bishop Schofield. In violation of Article II.3 and the applicable canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin, she convened a convention. Contrary to the plain sense of Article II.3 and Canon I.2.4 (a)(6) she consulted with clergy and laity of the Diocese of San Joaquin and, finally, she appointed a provisional Bishop in violation of Article II.3 and Canon III.13.
This is quite a list, and it concerns very fundamental aspects of TEC’s polity-a form of polity, incidentally, to which the Presiding Bishop has herself on many occasions made reference as a constraint upon her freedom to act. If she has failed to understand that her actions are in fact irregular, she needs at a minimum to seek more adequate advice. If, however, these actions have been taken with the knowledge that she is reaching beyond the limits imposed by TEC’s Constitution and Canons she is trying by the creation of an unchallenged precedent to expand the powers of the Presiding Bishop and in so doing convert the office into that of a Metropolitan. Such a move amounts to a sea change and runs directly contrary to the original constitutional purpose of having a Presiding Bishop rather than an Archbishop.The process by which Bishop Cox was deposed provides but further evidence of a serious threat to the orderly governance of TEC that TEC’s Bishops ought not to ignore. Again, the accusations of irregular procedure are well known so I will list them briefly and only in part. The Presiding Bishop failed to seek the inhibition of Bishop Cox as required by Canon IV.9.1. In pursuing the inhibition, the Presiding Bishop failed to gain consent to inhibition by senior bishops as required by Canon IV. 9.2, and she failed to give requisite notice. Moves such as these in fact create new procedures for deposing bishops-procedures that remove the procedural protections afforded to a charged bishop. Finally, the Presiding Bishop deposed Bishop Cox without the required consent of the "whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" as required under Canon IV.9.2. and explained in Article XII of the Constitution.
Noting the extent of these irregularities it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they demonstrate a pattern of willful violation. One must conclude that in this case the Presiding Bishop does know what she is doing. What she is doing is attempting to change the way in which TEC is ordered and governed without the requisite action of General Convention. One can only hope that the Bishops who are responsible for TEC’s good order will not acquiesce in what must be understood as a radical change in the powers of the Office of Presiding Bishop that is ultra vires.
Sigh. Thanks to Stand Firm.
UPDATE: Perhaps this is too harsh. Perhaps even ACI has reached the end of its tether. They've posted the memorandum outlining Mrs. Schori's repeated violations of the canons although I don't know if it's all there. It seems to end mid-sentence.
TURNING UP THE HEAT
This is why Mrs. Schori wrote the bishops. Because the question is now on the table. Might Katharine Jefferts Schori actually face presentment?
Sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, according to a legal memorandum that has begun circulating among members of the House of Bishops.
A copy of the April 21 document seen by a reporter representing The Living Church states Bishop Jefferts Schori demonstrated a “willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations, and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor” in her handling of the cases of bishops Robert W. Duncan, John-David Schofield and William Cox, and that she “subverted” the “fundamental polity” of The Episcopal Church in the matter of the Diocese of San Joaquin.
Prepared by an attorney on behalf of a consortium of bishops and church leaders seeking legal counsel over the canonical implications of the Presiding Bishop’s recent actions, it is unclear whether a critical mass of support will form behind the report’s recommendations for any action to be taken, persumably as a violation of the Presiding Bishop’s ordination vows. Title IV, Canon 3, Section 23a requires the consent of three bishops, or 10 or more priests, deacons and communicants “of whom at least two shall be priests. One priest and not less than six lay persons shall be of the diocese of which the respondent is canonically resident.” Victims of sexual misconduct and the Presiding Bishop also may bring charges before the Title IV [disciplinary] Review Committee. Title IV, Canon 3, Section 27 specifies that the Presiding Bishop appoints the five bishops to the Review Committee and the president of the House of Deputies appoints the two members of the clergy and two lay members. A spokeswoman said the Presiding Bishop was unable to respond to the charges as she had not yet seen the memorandum.The paper argues the Presiding Bishop “failed to seek the inhibition of Bishop Cox as required by [Title IV, Canon 9].” This failure was not a “technical issue that could be waived,” but was an “important procedural protection that is integral” to the use of the canon. Nor did she comply with the requirement that the bishop be given timely notice of the legal proceedings, as the Presiding Bishop withheld notice for seven months.
By not inhibiting Bishop Cox during the two-month period she gave him for denying the charges, the Presiding Bishop was also creating “new procedures” for deposing bishops. The 60-day notice to deny the charges applies only to an “inhibited bishop,” according to the memorandum. Bishop Jefferts Schori had made the same error in her treatment of Bishop Duncan, the document noted.
Bringing Bishop Cox before the House of Bishops without securing his inhibition first also violated Title IV, Canon 9, Section 2, the memorandum said, as “a bishop who has not been inhibited is not ‘liable to deposition’ under this canon.”
To suggest that the provision of Section 2 of the Canon: “Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular, or special meeting of the House,” was “nonsensical,” the paper argued for “if the ‘Otherwise’ sentence deals with uninhibited bishops such as Bishop Cox (and Duncan), there is no provision under which the Presiding Bishop is authorized to depose an inhibited bishop such as Bishop Schofield. No rule of legal interpretation permits such a nonsensical result.”The Presiding Bishop’s deposition of Bishops Cox and Schofield was done without the “necessary consent” of the House of Bishops. “The conclusion that the requisite consent was not given is irrefutable” as the “plain meaning” of the words of the canon, as well as voting procedures detailed in other parts of the Constitution and Canons do not permit the interpretation interposed by the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor, the paper said
Concerning the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Presiding Bishop’s announcement that she did not recognize the “duly elected” diocesan standing committee violated Articles IV and II.3 of the church’s constitution and repudiated her duties under [Title I, Canon 2, Section 4(a)(3)] which permits her only to “consult” with the diocesan ecclesiastical authority in the event of an episcopal vacancy.
The appointment of “representatives and vicars” to act in San Joaquin violated Article II.3 of the church’s constitution, the document stated, while the convening of a special convention in San Joaquin and installation of Bishop Jerry Lamb as the provisional bishop violated Article II.3 and Title III, Canon 13.
“The violations with respect to Bishops Cox and Duncan, although willful and repeated, pertained primarily to individual bishops. The violations with respect to [San Joaquin] however, subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go to the heart of TEC’s polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses’ governed under Article II.3 by bishops who are not under a metropolitan or archbishop,” the legal memorandum concluded.
The Living Church report concludes:
The authors of the legal memorandum were not optimistic the current legal and political environment within the church would be conducive for a conviction. The Title IV committee could issue a presentment, it could decline to issue a presentment and “produce a rationale that is persuasive to most objective observers,” or it could “decline to issue a presentment on grounds that are not persuasive and serve only to discredit the Review Committee and the process as well as the respondent,” it said.
This third outcome is “highly likely,” the paper concluded, but it noted the effort should nonetheless be made to hold the institution “accountable.”
I tend to agree. Although the preparation of this memorandum suggests that someone is thinking hard about the idea, the chances of anything coming of a presentment are, at best, negligible. There is no conceivable way the Episcopal left would throw Mrs. Schori over the side, the credibility of the institution be damned.
Nevertheless, the attempt should be made. And one has to think that the legal case of Bishop Schofield and the Diocese of San Joaquin(the real one, not Mrs. Schori's illegal, fraudulent entity) has just gotten a WHOLE lot stronger.
BACKATCHA
Jack Iker to Katharine Jefferts Schori: look in the mirror when you say that:
I am shocked and saddened by the rude letter you released yesterday to Archbishop Greg Venables, concerning his visit this weekend to the Diocese of Fort Worth. Far from being "an unwarranted interference," he is coming at my request as an honored visitor and guest speaker.
You should know that under the canons this does not require either your approval or your support. You have no say in this matter. A diocesan bishop is free to invite other bishops to visit and speak in his diocese.
There are no efforts at reconciliation proceeding within this Province, which is one reason why faithful people continue to leave TEC in droves. Your attitude and actions simply reinforce alienation and bring further discord.
Once again, you are the one meddling in the internal affairs of this diocese, and I ask you to stop your unwelcome intrusions.
LA LOI EST MOI
Kate Schori tries to cover her ass:
Inasmuch as the past several weeks have involved some significant situations, I thought it would be helpful to review and comment on process. First, regarding deposition for "abandonment of the communion of The Episcopal Church," it is important to remember that such an act is not by definition punitive, but does give formal recognition to a reality already taking place. Once the Title IV Review Committee has certified that a bishop has abandoned the communion of this Church under Title IV, Canon 9, the bishop in question is given sixty days to respond.
Not that it matters how Duncan the bishop responds.
During this sixty day period, Title IV has a provision for temporary inhibition of the bishop by the Presiding Bishop with the consent of the three senior active bishops of the Church. These bishops who must consent to the temporary inhibition do not, however, have a veto over consideration of the merits of the deposition by the House of Bishops, any more than those who must consent to temporary inhibitions in other circumstances have a veto over consideration of the charges by a trial court. This understanding of the canon is held not only by my Chancellor, but also by members of the Title IV Review Committee including an attorney who is an original member of the Committee, the chancellors of several dioceses who have been consulted, and the former Chair of both the Standing Commission on the Constitution and Canons and the Legislative Committee on the Canons at the General Convention.
Translation: if I want them deposed, I don't care whether they're inhibited or not so don't quote any stupid canons at me. Got it?
As the actual vote regarding deposition draws near, it is important to recognize what does and does not constitute a relevant response by the bishop in question. A letter of resignation from the House is irrelevant to the charges brought forward by the Review Committee and the deposition proceedings, since deposition concerns a person’s ordination in this Church, not simply participation in the House of Bishops. Resignation from the House thus has no bearing on following through with the charges brought forward by the Review Committee. Deposition in this situation makes clear in an official way that the bishop in question is no longer permitted to exercise ordained ministry in this Church.
Translation: nobody, least of all some stupid canon, is going to deny me my trophy.
Regarding how the vote is to be taken, the canon is clear that a vote on deposition must occur at "regular or special meeting of the House." Although we have other canonical consent provisions where consents may be secured by written ballot through the mail, that process does not satisfy the canons here. Every bishop entitled to vote is invited to the meeting and given ample notice that there will be a vote on depositions. Materials surrounding the deposition in question are posted in the "Bishops Only" section of the College for Bishops website. The canon is read that a quorum be present and a majority of all bishops present who are entitled to vote consent to the deposition, as was done in the case of Bishop Davies of Fort Worth in the 1990s and Bishop Larrea of Ecuador Central in 2005. In terms of parliamentary rules of order, any questions about the propriety of a vote are to be raised before the meeting or, of course, during it.
Translation: I don't care how the canon currently reads. Because we did it uncanonically that way in the past, we can do it that way again so bite me.
These are weighty matters, and it is important that we take seriously our procedures, as well as their purpose and intent. It is also important that we remember the reason that such canons and procedures are in place. These matters with which we are confronted have ramifications for many outside our House. For those who would like an alternative to deposition, we already have one, in the form of renunciation of vows in this Church, so that anyone may pursue his or her conscience and desires in another part of Christ’s Body. This option makes clear and clean an individual’s departure from The Episcopal Church. Resignation from the House is quite different, since it only deals with the person’s relation to the House, not to The Episcopal Church. Thus, to resign from the House while still claiming jurisdiction over a diocese with its property and assets is not a viable alternative.
Since it will cost us a fortune. I mean, do you know what we could get for some of that property?
Some have misunderstood the impact and intent of deposition. It is this Church’s formal way of saying to the world that the deposed cleric is no longer permitted to act as a sacramental representative of this Church. If vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church are not voluntarily renounced, how otherwise can a cleric take up new vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of another Church?
When the "doctrine, discipline and worship of" the Episcopal Organization are mandatory for Schofield Duncan Iker you but optional for the FishBish, that's how.
Those conservatives still in the Episcopal Organization need to face something if they haven't already. Your time as an orthodox Christian member of TEO is short. When they want you out, they will expel you regardless of what the canons say they can or can't do.
LIKE A PRAIRIE FIRE
A Canadian diocese makes the break:
Resolution # 2008-16 - BE IT RESOLVED that the Diocese of Athabasca reaffirm and uphold its foundational theology as expressed in The Solemn Declaration of 1893 as complete and accurate in every part, and consequently,
* That this synod repudiates those actions of the Anglican Church of Canada and its constituent parts which are contrary to the Solemn Declaration in any way;
* That this synod affirms and encourages the stand of those who have declared a like understanding of Anglican theology as expressed in the Solemn Declaration;
* That this synod directs the Secretary of Synod to memorialize Council of General Synod of this motion.
Resolution # 2008-11 - BE IT RESOLVED that the Synod of the Diocese of Athabasca inform the parishes and the bishops who have joined the Anglican Network in Canada and the Province of the Southern Cone that we are in full communion with them.
Fred? If you want to go this route, Kate can help you with a screw-the-canons-depose-Bishop-Clarke-anyway option.
HE'S EVERYWHERE, HE'S EVERYWHERE!!
This is depressing. Seems Gene Robinson's going to just be the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire at a Catholic booksellers trade show:
A group of Episcopals has invited controversial Episcopalian Bishop V. Gene Robinson to speak during a major Catholic trade show for booksellers. Though Robinson’s appearance is not directly sponsored by the trade show, he is listed in the show’s schedule of events.
The Religious Booksellers Trade Exhibit (RBTE) is a major trade show for Catholic bookstores that has been held for 17 years. It meets in St. Charles, Illinois and is open to other religious denominations, including the Episcopalians who invited Bishop Robinson.
Fortunately, Robbie's not going to be speaking at the RBTE lunch.
Church Publishing Incorporated, the publishing arm of the Episcopal Church, had suggested that Bishop Robinson be invited to speak at an RBTE lunch. “We told them that would not be possible,” Byrns said.
But the Episcopal part of this group invited Robbie to drop by its shindig.
When the organization asked if Bishop Robinson could speak at the Episcopal Booksellers Association (EBA) dinner on Wednesday evening, Byrns said, “We told them that we would need to seek the approval of the EBA membership.”
According to Byrns, the EBA membership “overwhelmingly wished to extend an invitation to the Bishop, and so it happened.”
Bishop Robinson’s talk, titled “Charting the Course of the Anglican Communion,” is announced on the trade show’s web site in the RBTE schedule, which says that the talk is sponsored by Church Publishing Incorporated. The bishop’s talk is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28.
Guess there was nothing RBTE could do about this. But this is typical of the Episcopalians.
YIN/YANG
I write to urge you not to bring further discord into The Episcopal Church. Visiting a special convocation of the Diocese of Fort Worth with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province. I ask you to consider how you might receive such a visit to your own Province from a fellow primate. The actions contemplated by some leaders in Fort Worth are profoundly uncanonical. They also prevent needed reconciliation from proceeding within this Province.
Throughout much of the question-and-answer session retired Bishop Sam B. Hulsey of Northwest Texas stood in the back of the parish hall. Last January Bishop Hulsey held an organizational meeting for clergy from the Diocese of Fort Worth, offering continuing care to those who wish to remain with The Episcopal Church, an action to which Bishop Jack Leo Iker of Fort Worth objected. Since then Bishop Hulsey has visited a handful of Fort Worth congregations.
Does Venables have Jack Iker's permission to come? After all, as much as it might pain Fort Worth's few liberals, Iker is still the local diocesan. Hulsey doesn't seem to have Iker's permission to do anything. Not that trivialities like that matter to Mrs. Schori since she'll get around to engineering Bishop Iker's deposition and removal soon enough.
UPDATE: It's official. Archbishop Venables has officially been invited by Bishop Iker. Still no word on Hulsey.
BE VEWY, VEWY QUIET
Kate's hunting bishops. Huhhuhhuhhuh:
Using a traditional Rogation service, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori blessed a new community garden at St. Thomas’ Church, Dallas, during a visit to that diocese April 28. About 140 persons from the dioceses of Dallas and Fort Worth attended the blessing. The group met in the parish hall for an informal question-and-answer session after the ceremony, which followed a two-hour session with diocesan clergy in the morning.
Clergy and laity from the Diocese of Fort Worth comprised a little less than half of those attending the reception. Their questions dominated, with some pleading with the Presiding Bishop for “help to get us out of the wilderness we now find ourselves in.” Fort Worth is one of several dioceses that are likely to consider leaving The Episcopal Church when their conventions are held this fall.
Bishop Jefferts Schori assured her questioners that a plan similar to the one employed in San Joaquin has already been prepared. When the Fort Worth delegation declared that they have been forgotten in this battle, the Presiding Bishop replied, “Have you been watching San Joaquin? They were not forgotten and now show dynamic signs of new life. You will not be forgotten, either.”
That would, of course, be the violate-every-canon-in-the-book-and-have-Beers-declare-you-didn't-in-order-to-depose-Iker-and-then-violate-even-more-canons-to-establish-an-illegal-standing-commission-and-bring-in-a-new-sychophant-pointy-hat plan. Saw it coming up the street.
ME!! WHEE!!
Publicity skank travels to Great Britain to just be the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire:
Bishop Gene Robinson, the very devil incarnate to some of his fiercest critics, is sitting before me in a London hotel.
When he was elected as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, Robinson became the Anglican Communion’s first openly gay bishop. He has lived in a committed relationship with Mark Andrew, a local government officer, for nigh on 20 years.
Their refusal to deny or cover up that same-sex commitment in order to avoid clashing with official church teaching on homosexuality, sent shockwaves around global Anglicanism.
The storm is set to intensify in July when the world’s Anglican bishops meet for their once-a-decade gathering at Lambeth Palace and debate what to do about the "problem" of Bishop Robinson.However, when the host, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, sent out invitations to the Lambeth Conference, Gene Robinson’s was the one name missing from the list. It was, Robinson believes, an "unstrategic" attempt to appease the conservative Anglican primates from Africa, Asia and Latin America, led by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who have described the installation of a gay bishop as the work of Satan.
"I have a lot of sympathy for Archbishop Williams," Robinson reflects. I can hear the "but" coming a mile off.
Dicey choice of words there.
"I pray for him all the time. And I worry about him, not in a condescending way. Given his views and his brilliant writing prior to becoming Archbishop of Canterbury, to see how he has led, or not led, on this issue of homosexuality makes me wonder how he sleeps at night.
Some of us wonder that about you too, Robbie.
What he has done, and what he has chosen not to do, violates where he has been all along."
There's no I in Jesus, Robbie. Oh, and, uh, beverage alert.
Robinson is in London to promote his new book, In The Eye of the Storm. It is a spiritual memoir aimed, he says, at showing that he is more than "a one issue guy".
Uh huh. Kind of why you're in Great Britain just being the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. But I guess you have to do a lot of tapdancing when you're as much of a theological airhead as Robbie is.
"Jesus never says anything about homosexuality[or racism or sexism or "homophobia" or the Millennium Development Goals or jaywalking or making a right turn on red or keeping a library book longer than the checkout period or... - Ed]," he says, the light tone in his nasal voice suddenly darkening, "but he says a lot about treating every person with dignity and respect. All the biblical appeals for a particular attitude to homosexuality can never quote Jesus."
What, though, of Old Testament condemnations of "men who lay with men"?
"The Church isn’t the same yesterday, today and tomorrow," he says."Only God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow."
Dear Lord. Sucks when you can theologically bitchslap your organization's own bishops without breaking a sweat. Robbie? God Incarnate is the same yesterday, today and forever. And the Bible is the Word of God.
QED, editing the Scriptures just to make you feel better about yourself is not wise. Or it didn't used to be until Robbie and his Episcopal allies decided that they didn't want to feel guilty about what they did in their off-hours anymore.
"As Anglicans we agree about so many things," Robinson concedes. "We are not arguing over the divinity of Christ, the Trinity or the Resurrection. We are arguing about a non-essential thing."
Unless you bigots think that allowing people to decide for themselves which sins Jesus did or did not die for is the very polar opposite of "a non-essential thing" in which case, kiss off. But all that's to be expected since Robbie's deity is not YHWH but the Zeitgeist.
"It is so sad to me that this issue has become so important to us," he insists. "To raise any issue about the central issues that Jesus raised is idolatry.
Uh...what?!!
To focus on this issue to the exclusion of everything else is a kind of idolatry.
It makes the Church seem that much more hopelessly irrelevant to the culture for whom this is less and less of an issue all the time, and especially for people under 30. It makes the Church look so behind the times. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Church could lead for a change rather than bring up the rear?"
Yeah whatever, sunshine.
Thing is, a lot of the Anglican controversy could have been avoided if Robbie had shown the least amount of...oh, what's the word I'm looking for...ah, yes...humility. If he had stayed down, stayed in New Hampshire, declared that a Lambeth invitation didn't matter to him one way or ther other and, well, just been the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, a good deal of the wind would have been knocked out of conservative Anglican sails.
But he didn't. The megalomaniacal old fraud had to become the practicing homosexual bishop. Not only that, but the rest of the Anglican world had to accept him as an Anglican bishop, no questions asked or reservations allowed. So whether he likes it or not, all this is on Robbie's head. And on the head of the organization that gave him a pointy hat.
Not that I'm going to care much longer. In a few more months, the Episcopal Organization can ordain anyone it wants to.
A THOUSAND WORDS
Although GenCon 2009 is a little over a year away, the Episcopal Organization is already getting ready for it:
Requesting entries by June 30, organizers have launched a church-wide contest for logo designs conveying the 2009 General Convention theme of "ubuntu" (pronounced oo-boon-too), a Zulu or Xhosa word that describes humaneness encompassing a sense of caring, sharing and being in harmony with all of creation.
The central focus on ubuntu -- a concept that South African Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu interprets to express "a person is a person through other persons" -- will be complemented by Convention sub-themes of "Identity" and "Mission," planners say.
Sponsored by General Convention’s Joint Standing Commission on Planning and Arrangements, the contest offers a $5,000 first-prize contribution to an organization addressing one or more of the Millennium Development Goals.
I'll get the ball rolling(see above).
UPDATE: One more.
UPDATE: It's been pointed out in the comments that in addition to possibly being an African word of some kind, Ubuntu is also a Linux-based operating system. You can download it here.
MARK YOUR CALENDARS
At the end of next month, St. Thomas Episcopal Church in Philadelphia is going to have a special guest:
For the third consecutive year, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright will serve as revivalist for the African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May 28 and 29.
Wright is former pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), a mega church in Chicago, Illinois with approximately 10,000 members.Wright, a native of Philadelphia, has had his beliefs and manner of preaching scrutinized recently in the media and segments from his sermons publicized in connection with presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Wright's "beliefs and manner of preaching" were on display at the National Press Club this morning. Dana Milbank reports.
Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama’s presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama’s longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.
Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.Wright seemed aggrieved that his inflammatory quotations were out of the full "context" of his sermons -- yet he repeated many of the same accusations in the context of a half-hour Q&A session this morning.
His claim that the September 11 attacks mean "America’s chickens are coming home to roost"?
Wright defended it: "Jesus said, ’Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."
His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter’s being vilified for and Bishop Tutu’s being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I’m anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that’s what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn’t make me this color."He denounced those who "can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe." He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color ("I believe our government is capable of doing anything").
Even Obama's bitch Andrew Sullivan has finally caught on.
But what he said today extemporaneously, the way in which he said it, the unrepentant manner in which he reiterated some of his most absurd and offensive views, his attempt to equate everything he believes with the black church as a whole, and his open public embrace of Farrakhan and hostility to
the existence of IsraelZionism, make any further defense of him impossible. This was a calculated, ugly, repulsive, vile display of arrogance, egotism, and self-regard.Obama needs not just to distance himself from Wright’s views; he needs to disown him at this point. Wright himself, it seems to me, has become part of what Obama is fighting against: the boomer, Vietnam era’s obsession with its red-blue, white-black, pro and anti-America fixations. That is not what this election needs to be about; and Wright’s massive, racially divisive and, yes, bitter provocation requires a proportionate response.
We need a speech or statement from Obama in which he utterly repudiates this poison, however personally difficult that may be, however damaging the impact will be. The statement today will not do it. This is no longer about cynics trying to associate one man’s politics with another. It is now about Wright attempting to associate himself and some of his noxious, stupid, rancid views with the likely Democratic nominee. Wright has given Obama no choice - and he has also given him another opportunity. He needs to seize it.
Be interesting to see if Mrs. Schori drops by this event. She'd probably sneak in and make sure that her visit never makes Piskie Pravda. Kate certainly doesn't need the leftist street cred but I have to think it would too tempting an event for a good Spongian like her to miss.