These articles, as well as the history of Christianity general, show that the Roman Church is just as screwed up as any other church out there, despite all of their claims to the contrary. The Episcopal Church, and other western Anglican churches, are, without a doubt, completely wacko themselves (one could fill volumes with their antics: bishops divorced and remarried multiple times; acceptance of Mormon baptism; woman "priests" and "bishops"; syncrenistic rites; clergy that double as Wicca clergy; etc.). But I will say this for them: at least they are not outright hypocrites with a lot of this stuff like Rome - at least the American Church - is. The Episcopal Church may ordain practicing homosexual clergy, but at least they are following their collective conscience (however disordered that may be), whereas Rome speaks out of two sides of their mouth on the issue, saying publically that homosexual acts are disordered and evil, but privately turning a blind eye to the highly active gay subculture culture in their own church - a very well-documented culture (e.g. is anyone else following the Fr. Haley affair in the gloriously "traditional" Diocese of Arlington?).
Rome looks great on paper. But their (false) belief that the pontiff is infallible, and the "center of catholic unity", and the "Vicar of Christ on earth", is just a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to day-to-day Roman Catholic parish life. The authoritarian model of their governance, and their innovative "four-fold office", is not a foolproof system that absolutely prevents strange doctrines and practices from ever developing. In the long run, there is nothing doctrinally or morally more "safer" or "secure" about the Roman Church as compared to any other Church. The faith that some Roman Catholics have in the office of the pope is truly amazing. They truly believe that the pope and curia will never err (e.g. ordain women, or allow married clergy, etc.). They would do well to learn from history, and study the corrupt lives of some of the Renaissance popes, or perhaps revisit some of the controversies of the Reformation (treasury of merits, indulgences, etc.... oh, yeah, indulgences are still around , by the way.). Popes have erred in the past, so why would they not in the future? They are, after all, only human. Those who think "swimming the Tiber" will solve all of their problems, and answer all of their questions, and end the struggle with sin and heresy, should think twice. It won't.
My point, believe it or not, is not to sit and bash Rome. Continuing Anglican churches have their problems too, don't get me wrong. Any church will have its problems. I think, though, we have to choose our poison. Personally, I would rather be in a church that may have a problem with overlapping jurisdiction, too many people running around claiming to be bishops, and buildings that are not grand edifaces instead of being in a church where God is spoken of as "mother", and where so-called bishops and clergy routinely deny the core doctrines of Christian faith and morality and go undisciplined. And personally, I would rather be in a church that does justice to the scriptural and historical notion of a collegial episcopate (among other things) than one that does not. I do not condemn those who, following their conscience, belong to some other church (Roman, PCA, Episcopal, ELCA, etc.). But we should always be aware of the problems in our own commmunity before we criticize others' communities. Rome seems to be one of the only churches left out there that hasn't quite realized this just yet.