Posted on 03/26/2017 6:20:46 PM PDT by johnk
However, multiple reports have pointed out that Gorsuch and his wife attend St. John's, Boulder — a liberal Episcopal church headed by a very liberal, pro-LGBT female rector named Rev. Susan Springer.
Opposition to Gorsuch's affiliation with St. John's was voiced even before he was nominated.
Christian conservative activist and lawyer Andy Schlafly, the son of the late pro-life leader Phyllis Schlafly, voiced his concern over the possible nomination of Gorsuch in an email sent in November with the subject line: "veto these Sup. Ct. nominee candidates."
Schlafly wrote that Gorsuch "probably would NOT be pro-life on the Supreme Court" and included him on his list of "unacceptable nominees."
"Gorsuch's Episcopalian church has declared its 'unequivocal opposition' to pro-life laws and he has said nothing publicly pro-life," Schlafly wrote in the email.
Others, including journalist Julia Duin, who previously wrote for the conservative news outlet The Washington Times, have brought up the issue of Gorsuch's membership at St. John's.
"Think about that for a moment. If this man is the frightening conservative that some on the Left are already alleging him to be, there's no way he'd be Episcopalian, much less at a woman-priested church," Duin wrote. "The Episcopal Church, for anyone who's not been following religion trends in recent decades, has been careening to the theological and cultural left for years and its membership statistics show it. Thousands have left TEC and joined alternative Anglican churches."
"A Google search shows there's an Anglican church in Boulder that the Gorsuch family could be attending if they so desired," she continued. "So, the fact that the judge and his family has remained at St. John's says something."
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Where did you hear Trump was saved? I missed that.
Neil Gorsuch: Judge’s Dissertation Is Anti Gay Marriage | Time.com
http://time.com/4705941/neil-gorsuch-gay-rights-same-sex-marriage/
So you believe his wife controls where they attend church?
Typically, the Episcopal clergy is way to the left of the congregations.
Nobody really listens to them on political matters. Frankly, many do not on theological matters, as well.
Mommy st folks read the Pastoral Letter, and even more the Letter from the Bishop, with an attitude of “What did that idiot say this time?”
We have never met, but I am one. I will explain to you my thinking.
The thing that is attractive about the ECUSA is that there is absolutely no requirement or even pressure to conform on matters of politics. There is not even pressure to conform on matters of religion. There is a tradition of reason that supports the individual's capacity to discern and decide for himself. This is one leg of the "Three Legged Stool".
So while the clergy is pretty uniformly leftist, I am under no obligation to heed what they say. In fact, I can openly disagree and discuss these matters without it being seen as a challenge to authority. This is in contrast to the Catholic Church of my upbringing, which is also too Lefty for my tastes, but which does not tolerate deviation from the Church's positions with such aplomb.
Obama’s church mattered.
If anyone is interested in real crimes committed by the left wing, take a stroll through the link below where good freepers discuss itgate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/itgate/index
If not, continue the Borking of Gorsuch!
Paula White led him to what exactly? Her brand of “Christianity” is not exactly what I would call, Truth.
How long did the days of Lot last?
I feel like not even he had to deal with half of the nonsense and stupidity we’re dealing with these evil days.
Three of my cousins and their families in South Carolina left this so-called “church” over the homo promo issue, never to return. If they would leave why not Gorsuch?
Im just so sick of the Roberts type liars. Do you think that Sotomayor didn’t tell Obama in writing that she would kill babies? How about kagan? You think she would have walked out rather than answer. The democrats put raving communist globalist in Scotus and now we put some silent.so called Jurist in like Souter. Who goes to a baby killing church that believes in abomination in BOULDER COLORADO and we don’t see the similarity to the Jeremy Wright indicator? “gawd dam AMERICA”
We aren’t fools here.
He also fought for Little Sisters of the Poor, and won. The government cannot force religious organizations or business' owned by Christians to provide abortion producing drugs to their employees, if it offends their religious consequence. This is huge!
For those alone, I am eternally gateful for Judge Gorsuch nomination.
I wouldn’t attend a church that opposed the Right to Life of innocent little preborn babies.
There is a lot of difference between Souter and Roberts.
So he strictly interprets the constitution but loosely interprets the Bible? Very loosely.
Yes. Roberts was wire tapped and compromised badly. Souter was never wire tapped. They both were liberals.
I KINDA think maybe this sort of reflexive church attendance, personal (not to say idiosyncratic) piety, plus parish “good works” attitude may have given space for the kind of lefty Unitarianish thinking so many Episcopal clergy have.
It's interesting to me because I was an Episcopal priest before I became a Catholic. I found that a great many parishioners were more traditionally devout and even orthodox than many of the clergy. One lady, though, was shocked and disappointed that I actually believed that Jesus, you know, died to save us from sin and death!
My English mother was a sort of Anglican Socialist who disagreed with St. Paul about justification by faith. It's so weird: a communion with strong Reformation influence yet claims to Catholicism, and so many parishioners are really Pelagian Unitarians! Yet so many others really do love Jesus and make an effort to be theologically informed.
But even when I was active ... I remember in the early 80s the House of Bishops labored and brought forth some pastoral letter which was notable in its ignorance of history. By the end of the 80s ... I remember a conversation with a bishop about Eucharistic theology. He claimed to believe in transubstantiation and to repudiate Hooker's “high receptionism” bu it became distressingly clear that he had NO idea what he was talking about. I don't know if it's very “Episcopalish” to insist on this or that Eucharistic Doctrine. They may SAY, “real presence,” but there's no agreement on what “real” means, so it's little more than a vague claim of some sort of objectivity.
But I think a bishop ought either to know the classic dogma or to have a counselor who knows them. As I slipped across the Tiber I saw that if there were any Episcopal theologians of merit, the clergy weren't listening to them. It was almost all slogans and fads.
So, what was there really for the laity to listen to?
A quick glance at the membership of various churches denomination in the history of this country would tell you that very little is attractive about the ECUSA. When this country was founded, Anglicanism enjoyed dominate status throughout the 13 colonies due to inheriting the faith from England and the Church of England being the "official", state-sponsored church. Episcopalian was BY FAR the most common church affiliation of the founding fathers. Catholicism was extremely rare in 18th century America and made up less than 1% of the religious affiliation the colonies back then, and much of their support came from France.
Today, the reverse is true. The EPUSA has shrunk to a tiny, tiny faction of the numbers it once had, and is one of the fastest DECLINING churches for membership rolls in the USA. In the 21st century, they are now less than 2% of Americans. The few people who regularly attend their "mass" (or whatever they call it) on Sunday are usually elderly white people. The EPUSA has been unable to stop the bleeding and has been torn apart by internal fighting since ordaining that gay "bishop", so many disgruntled Anglicans who remain Anglican just join a more conservative Anglican denomination rather than remain in the ECUSA. People who leave the Catholic Church for another Christian denomination tend to become "non-denominational" (why they'd want generic Christianity is beyond me, but that's what the demographics show), whereas Catholic-to-Episoplian conversions are rare, and again, usually because the Catholic Church is not liberal enough for their tastes and won't celebrate their gay "marriage" or ordain a woman "priest" like they want. The Catholic Church's membership has also completely flipped from 18th century America, and has been the LARGEST church affiliation in the United States for quiet sometime. Over 1/4th of Americans are now Catholic. The ordination of the gay "bishop" in the USA has resulted in the largest exodus of Anglician-to-Catholic converts, even resulting in the creation of an "Anglician use" rite in the United States so that entire congregations can switch denominations and affliate with the local Roman Catholic bishop.
>> there is absolutely no requirement or even pressure to conform on matters of politics. I can openly disagree and discuss these matters without it being seen as a challenge to authority. This is in contrast to the Catholic Church, but which does not tolerate deviation from the Church's positions <<
Again, to be quite honest, you seem to be the ONLY FReeper I've met who thinks the Catholic Church isn't tolerant of any dissent from its political views. Elsewhere on FR, the OPPOSITE charge is leveled against the U.S. Catholic Church (that the bishops, clergy, and hierarchy of the U.S. church do nothing to combat rogue priests who preach things that go against Catholic doctrine, or against lay Catholics who openly promote things considered intrinsically evil by the Catholic Church). The fact that the Catholic Church refuses to discline rabidly pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage politicians in its ranks is the one of the most common complaints on FR. I'd love to live in your alternate universe where the Catholic Church does not tolerate division from the Church's positions and pressures members to conform on matters of politics. It's so far from reality, its like the alternate universe where Barack Obama had a "more humble foriegn policy" that didn't "bully" other countries and force his views on them.
Speaking of which, take a look at the Roberts threads from 2005. His appointment was applauded on here and numerous people said his personal views meant absolutely nothing because his "judicial philosophy" was "originalist" and that would magically ensure he always votes the right way.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
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.