Posted on 12/22/2006 5:14:10 AM PST by Thorin
The real schismatics and bigots "I grew up in the Episcopal Church. I hope I don't cry when I talk about this. But the issue is: Are we going to follow Scripture?" So an anguished Katrina Wagner, a member of the leadership of Truro Episcopal parish, told Washington Post reporters Bill Turque and Michelle Boornstein. They have been covering the sad Christmas story of the breakup of the Episcopal Church in Northern Virginia. Nine parishes have voted to secede from the American church.
What forced the break was the installation at the National Cathedral of Katharine Jefferts Schori of Nevada as presiding bishop of the U.S. Episcopal Church. Schori has blessed homosexual unions and supported the consecration as Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire of V. Gene Robinson, a priest who had left his wife to enter a homosexual union. At last report, Robinson was cohabiting with his gay lover.
Traditionalists have had it with the hierarchy, and the in-your-face elevation of a green and trendy liberal prelate to lead them broke it. Not only have the nine parishes severed ties, with more considering secession, seven of 111 Episcopal dioceses have rejected Schori's authority. Sad as the story seems, however, it produced mirth and mockery from Washington Post columnist Howard Meyerson.
"Whether it was the thought of a woman presiding over God's own country club or gays snuggling under its eaves, it was all too much" for the "Fairfax Phobics," wrote Meyerson. This is "just the latest chapter in the global revolt against modernism and equality and, more specifically, in the formation of the Orthodox International."
And what, exactly, is the "Orthodox International"?
"The OI unites frequently fundamentalist believers of often opposed faiths in common fear and loathing of challenges to ancient tribal norms. ... The OI's founding father was Pope John Paul II, who ... sought to build his church in nations of the developing world where traditional morality and bigotry, most especially on matters sexual, were ... more in sync with the Catholic Church's inimitable backwardness. Now America's schismatic Episcopalians are following in (John Paul's) footsteps – traditionalists of the two great Western hierarchical Christian churches searching the globe for sufficiently benighted bishops."
The reference to "benighted bishops" is to Archbishop Akinola, who believes, as the 13 colonies and 50 American states did up until the late 20th century, that homosexual sodomy should be a crime. Jefferson, the patron saint of liberals, thought active homosexuals should be emasculated.
Meyerson dismisses the Fairfax dissenters as a "distinct minority." Yet, he concedes that only 13 of 38 national churches in the Anglican communion ordain women, and only three – the United States, Canada and New Zealand – permit the consecration of women bishops.
So who are the real schismatics, the real heretics?
In rejecting the authority of Schori and refusing to bless homosexual unions, the dissenters have God, Scripture, and church teaching and tradition on their side. Did not Christ Himself say to the Pharisees of his day: "Have ye not read that He who made man at the beginning 'made them male and female'? And He said, 'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.'"
As for the Old Testament, Leviticus is a good deal rougher on the Mattachines than even Archbishop Akinola.
And, tell us, Meyerson, if the dissenters believe in their hearts that Christ restricted the priesthood and apostolic succession to men and that homosexual sodomy is a sin against God, which, persisted in, corrupts the soul and can bring eternal damnation, should they stand firm in the faith – or should they conform to the commands of "modernity"?
Meyerson is particularly upset that Pope John Paul's "Orthodox International" – Israeli rabbis, Christian and Islamic clergy – came forward to "bury ancient enmities and to jointly condemn a gay pride festival" in Jerusalem. Yet one need not be a raging homophobe to think it probably not a good idea – in the middle of a Muslim intifada that may lead to a war of civilizations between Islam and the West – not to have 100,000 Sodomites cavorting in the Holy City.
In discussing the late pope and traditional Christians, Meyerson tosses about insults like "benighted," "tribal" and "Phobics." He charges the Catholic Church with "backwardness," and draws a direct parallel between Catholic teaching and "tribal norms" and "traditional morality and bigotry."
Meyerson's is the authentic voice of an anti-Catholicism that is out of the closet and on the op-ed pages of the national press.
"Episcopalians Against Equality" is the title of Meyerson's piece. But this is surely unjust. None of these folks has called for the denial of any rights to homosexuals. They are simply saying that, as faithful Christians, they cannot elevate to the same moral plane as Christian marriage, which the Lord commends, the homosexual unions Scripture condemns.
God bless these brave Episcopalians at Christmas – and a very Merry Christmas to you, too, Meyerson.
Anti-Catholic bigotry exposed.
And you guys know how I generally despise Buchanan.
Nevertheless, a great article that shows how much the left despises even such saintly men as John Paul the Great for the sin of being Catholic.
An interesting way to describe the Christian ethic. But I suppose one that's correct, to look at it objectively. However, before dismissing that ethic as a crude cultural artifact of some tribal period, I suggest its critics look as objectively at the power it has had to advance men's lives, and to tame the most beastial of impulses.
In short, those "tribal norms" have defined what we now know as "civilization." To abandon them now is to return to cultural savagery, which of course is the ultimate goal of the Left.
Pat is a pretty smart guy, and always has been.
A person can be technically intelligent but still wrong about almost every practical question. That's Pat.
That's waayyy too political a thing to say.
Pat unfortunately chose to cite a creation for the basis of his argument, when the command is from the creator, HIMself.
God calls homosexuals Sodomites, and their sin is sodomy ... and it is all an abomination to HIM.
Off to work .. will cite scripture references later.
Actually, Buchanan has been right about nearly every major issue of the last two decades, unless you think Iraq is a success, illegal immigration is wonderful, and the continued advance of the left in the culture wars (including the homosexual agenda) is swell.
He's wrong about Israel and that certainly limits my respect for him.
I agree with you about Pat. Pat got a rare vindication Wednesday night on Scarborough Country when Scarborough admitted that Pat had been right about not wanting to invade Iraq and that he (Scarborough) had been wrong. The Neocon goal of turning an Arab dictatorship into a Swedish democracy is folly and their goal of turning Iraqi muslims into Amish democracy lovers is not going to happen. Pat is right again.
First, that's not true. Second, having a correct opinion about an issue and having a practicable plan of action are two different things, which is precisely the point I was addressing.
unless you think Iraq is a success
I do indeed think it is a remarkable success and I am sick and tired of unpatriotic backstabbers badmouthing the accomplishments of our troops in the field.
And that includes Buchanan, Roberts, Rockwell, Reese, Raimondo, Fleming and the rest of those moronic cranks and creeps.
Too bad Benedict XVI doesn't share your opinion.
Too bad as well the Iraqi Christians don't share your opinion: half of them have fled the country. I guess they don't know how good they have it.
Of course, Chronicles pointed out that the invasion of Iraq would be a disaster of Iraqi Christians. But no one cared, and they still don't.
Personally, I think the next plan of attack should be to have Christopher Hitchens and Jonah Goldberg lead an all-pundit combat patrol in Falluajah. But, for some reason, most of the "pundit-patriots" are content to serve the cause from the Beltway or Manhattan.
Nice straw man.
No one ever proposed an Iraq organized on the Swedish model.
The model envisioned for Iraq was the Jordanian model: a representative National Assembly where national minorities have a voice and access to parliamentary ministries.
Jordan is not ideal, but it works. Its people are very free by Middle Eastern standards, Christians and Muslims get along, as do Bedouins and Circassians and Sunnis and Shiites.
If Jordanians - who are largely Arabs organized by clans like the iraqis are - can achieve stability, so can Iraqis.
It is too bad. Of course, Popes can err in matters not of faith and morals, as all Catholics know.
Radical Protestants like to bait Catholics with statements that presume that Catholics believe that everything any Pope ever does or says is an irreformable doctrinal imperative.
But such baiting is idiotic and pointless, since it is premised on a stupid misapprehension of Catholic belief.
Too bad as well the Iraqi Christians don't share your opinion: half of them have fled the country.
(1) Your numbers are simply made up.
(2) Even if your fake numbers were correct, your analysis is flawed. Christians have been leaving every country in the Middle East (if they can manage it) for decades.
I guess they don't know how good they have it.
Pretty much any Christian living in a Muslim country would prefer to live elsewhere, be that country Iraq, Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia. The only way to make Iraq a really comfortable place for Christians would be to get rid of all the Muslims.
Your implict thesis, that Christians lived it up under Saddam Hussein and loved being in Iraq while he was in charge is laughable. They did not leave during his dictatorship because they were not allowed to - not because they enjoyed living in a totalitarian state.
Of course, Chronicles pointed out that the invasion of Iraq would be a disaster of Iraqi Christians.
It's amazing how Chronicles is always able to predict things after they've already happened.
Personally, I think the next plan of attack should be to have Christopher Hitchens and Jonah Goldberg lead an all-pundit combat patrol in Falluajah.
Personally, I think all the cowardly losers who badmouth the progress our fighting forces have made should shut their mealy mouths.
Hitchens and Goldberg both have many personal and philosophical flaws, but one thing I can say on their behalf is that they have not been stabbing our actual combat patrols in Fallujah in the back, like Buchanan and Rockwell - who themselves are pretty long on military advice and pretty short on military service.
Oh, and congrats on managing to hijack your own thread.
Didn't you hear the latest?
Homosexuals are taking a page from teh DNC 2006 playbook.
The homosexuals are no officially saying the POPE is a homosexual because he has red shoes.
really
They are the numbers given by Catholic bishops in Iraq. But, of course, you know more about what goes on there than they do, since you read "The Weekly Standard" and they only live there.
>>>>>>>It's amazing how Chronicles is always able to predict things after they've already happened.
Wayne Allensworth wrote an article about this before the first American serviceman had set foot in Iraq. He pointed out that Hussein had restrained the Islamists, but that an invasion would unleash them, and that the Islamists would begin targeting Christians. As indeed they have. Ironically, many Iraqi Christians have found refuge in Syria, another country the neocons are itching to invade and "democratize."
>>>>>>>Hitchens and Goldberg both have many personal and philosophical flaws,
Christopher Hitchens is an anti-Catholic bigot and unrepentant Trotskyite, ie, Communist. It tells any thinking Christian conservative all he needs to know about the neocons that all of them are in bed with Hitchens.
They were saying that last year because his personal assistant is a priest whom the ladies think is dreamy.
The Christians of Iraq are not exclusively Catholic, and the Catholic bishops of Iraq - sadly - seem to have their own political motivations for what they say.
That is likely due to the fact that they were chosen on a political basis by a Vatican whose uppermost concern was finding a candidate whose elevation would not result in a persecution of the Church by the former regime.
But, of course, you know more about what goes on there than they do, since you read "The Weekly Standard" and they only live there.
You assume that I read "The Weekly Standard" because I disagree with cranks like Thomas Fleming and Lew Rockwell.
I don't. TWS is mostly fluff and not really worth reading.
My information on Iraq is in large part derived from my brother's firsthand experiences serving three tours with the armored cavalry in Iraq.
He is a Catholic and liaises with the Chaldaean Catholic community there.
He talks to people in the pews and worships among them when he has the opportunity.
I trust him.
I also personally know several Chaldaeans Catholics who travel back and forth between the US and Iraq and I trust them as well.
Wayne Allensworth wrote an article about this before the first American serviceman had set foot in Iraq. He pointed out that Hussein had restrained the Islamists, but that an invasion would unleash them, and that the Islamists would begin targeting Christians. As indeed they have.
And so the choice was between taking the risk of being full citizens of a free country, or remaining second-class citizens in a total regime that could turn on them at a moment's notice.
Allensworth's thesis - that slavery is more secure than freedom - doesn't have much predictive value.
A portion of the Christians who have resettled have resettled in Syria, most likely because they have relatives who live in Syria. Many more have resettled in Jordan and in Michigan.
And most have elected to stay.
There is no irony in the fact that some people prefer to live under a dictatorship than to make a go of a free nation.
That's usually the case.
Christopher Hitchens is an anti-Catholic bigot and unrepentant Trotskyite, ie, Communist.
Yes, Hitchens is rotten to the core.
It tells any thinking Christian conservative all he needs to know about the neocons that all of them are in bed with Hitchens.
A ridiculous statement.
Buchanan is in bed with Fulani and Raimondo - respectively a unrepentant Leninist and an anti-Catholic bigot - does that mean that every traitor who opposes the war is a Communist who hates the Church in addition to being a traitor?
Not necessarily.
Jordan is actually a monarchy called the Hashemite Kingdom with a Monarch named Abdullah. Here is an excerpt about the Kingdom, "Head of state: King Abdullah
King Abdullah, Jordan's monarch since 1999, has had to steer a tricky political course. The country's peace agreement with Israel and its close ties with the US are unpopular with many Jordanians.
The king backs reforms, but the pace of change has been slow
At home, the king backs a 10-year programme for political, social and economic reform and supports a plan for elected local councils. Conservative legislators are apprehensive about the proposals.
In the wake of the November 2005 suicide bombings in Amman the king declared that security and stability were top priorities and called for a strategy to deal with the "changed circumstances".
Abdullah is the eldest son of the late King Hussein and his British-born second wife, Toni. The couple divorced in 1972. Born in 1962 and educated in Britain and the US, he was named as crown prince shortly after his birth. The king transferred the title to his own brother, Hassan, in 1965, only to return it to Abdullah in 1999.
He is married to a Palestinian - an asset since most Jordanians are of Palestinian origin - and enjoys car racing, water sports and collecting antique weapons. He is a career soldier and once led Jordan's special forces.
The king has extensive powers; he appoints governments, approves legislation and is able to dissolve parliament.
In other words, the Arab Iraq had a strongman named Saddam Hussein and the Hashemite Kingdom has a strong king named Abdullah. Jordan, to use your words, is not ideal but it works. Iraq under Saddam, was not ideal but it worked. Iraq today, per the Baker report, is in chaos.
I repeat, a Swedish style democracy is not going to work in an Arab muslim country. And the Neocon plan to have democracy grow out of the barrel of a gun in Iraq isn't working because the Iraqis are not pacifist Amish types.
Pat was right - the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The Iranians are now ready to take over. Pat said that pulling out now would be another mistake - because we can't afford to let the Iranians turn Iraq into another Islamic Republic. I'm sure you'll agree with him on that point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.