Bishop Smith illegally storms St John's Church

The Connecticut Six ^ | 7/13/2005 | Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut

[sionnsar]

This is the Diocese Press Release

This morning, the Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, inhibited the rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in Bristol, the Rev. Mark H. Hansen, removing him from that office, and appointed the Rev. Susan J. McCone to serve as priest-in-charge of the parish, effective immediately.

In March, Fr. Hansen announced to his parish that he would be taking sabbatical for an unspecified period of time. Although Episcopal priests in the Diocese of Connecticut formally apply for sabbatical, Fr. Hansen neglected to notify Bishop Smith of his departure as rector of the parish. In recent months, the bishop has become increasingly concerned for St. John's well-being as a full and healthy member parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut.

"I am concerned for the life and ministry of St. John's," said Bishop Smith. "In the past few months Fr. Hansen has made decisions that left the parish without sustained clergy leadership."

A letter formally inhibiting the Rev. Mark H. Hansen, St. John's rector, was delivered by Bishop Smith to St. John's Episcopal Church in Bristol. The Bishop was accompanied by the diocesan Canon for Stewardship and Administration, John ("Jack") W. Spaeth III, the Rev. Susan J. McCone, and Mr. Ed Seibert, who will provide administrative assistance. Fr. Hansen was not at the church or rectory; the bishop has not been notified of an alternate address.

In April, the diocesan Standing Committee, a council of advice for the bishop with specific responsibilities for clergy, recommended that Fr. Hansen be inhibited for abandoning the communion of the church. "Inhibition" means that the Fr. Hansen may not exercise the privileges of ordained ministry in the Diocese for a period up to six months. If before six months is over, the bishop is satisfied that he has returned to the communion of the church, the inhibition will be lifted (removed). If after six months the bishop does not believe Fr. Hansen has returned to the communion of the church, the bishop may depose him, permanently removing the privileges of ordained ministry in this and all other dioceses of the Episcopal Church.

Bishop Smith has appointed the Rev. Susan J. McCone as priest-in-charge of the parish, effective immediately. She now has the responsibility for the worship, ministry, mission, and property, under the bishop's direction. Ed Seibert, an administrative and financial consultant, has been asked to assist in parish administration and to review parish records. The bishop will provide pastoral counselors who will be available to meet with and listen to members of the parish who may wish to speak with them.

A letter is being sent today to the members of St. John's, notifying them of these events and inviting them to a special meeting with Bishop Smith on Sunday evening, July 17. That meeting will be open only to members of St. John's Episcopal Church, Bristol, and closed to the media and non-members of the parish.

[BelegStrongbow]

I'm going to keep beating this dead horse until it is as fine as dust, but just when did I Timothy drop out of the Scripture?? Or has the word 'andros' changed its meaning while I wasn't looking?

In Christ,
Deacon Paul+

[Vicomte13]

Back in earlier days of the Christian Church, religious authorities used murder, death, torture and legal force to compel faith. The Arians did in the example you did. The Catholics did against the Albigensians in France, particularly. Protestants burnt about 50,000 "witches" in Germany in the post-Reformation period. The Inquisition is infamous. So is the hanging, drawing and quartering of priests by Queen Elizabeth.

The Christians have stopped doing this.
But the Muslims are still in the "blood and fire" phase of their religion. Unfortunately for them (and all of their neighbors), their holy book itself explicitly commands this. By contrast, all of the various Christian-perpetrated horrors of violence and torture sit, and always sat, very uncomfortably with the Gospels of Jesus of Nazareth.

Nazareth was not a warmonger.
Mohammed was.
The difference shows in their religious texts.
And that difference ultimately shows through their religions.
Men being prone to violence and being bad, they all do bad things from time to time. But for Christians, even if justified by their religion, there was always a powerful countercurrent in their religious texts that, read plainly in plain language, tell us that Christians who kill and torture in the zeal for their faith are actually in defiance of the tenets of their own God.
By contrast, the Koran sets the Muslim free to follow his own worst impulses and justify it in the name of God.

What I meant by "Yeah, that was back in the days when Christians acted like Muslims on jihad. At least that much has changed" was that Christians used to murder others to advance their religion, just like Muslims.
The difference is that Christians don't do it any more, because their Bible actually says not to do that, and in a literate age, more people know that. Muslims continue to do it, and their Koran says to to do that, and in a literate age, more people know that.

[Graves]

"Christians used to murder others to advance their religion, just like Muslims."
Well, as an Orthodox Christian, I am impelled to observe that Orthodox Christians have never advanced the faith by murder or by war. They did, however, defend their territory as needed against the depredations of non Christians and against heretics.

But, as you say, "The Catholics did against the Albigensians in France, particularly. Protestants burnt about 50,000 "witches" in Germany in the post-Reformation period. The Inquisition is infamous. So is the hanging, drawing and quartering of priests by Queen Elizabeth."

True enough. Please note that none of foregoing involved Orthodox Christians. And as Orthodox Christians were not involved, I see no need to feel embarrassed by any of it. I was afraid you were going to throw stuff at me that involved Orthodox Christians, e.g the massacre of the Muslim men at Srebrenica in 1993. As to that, please see http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GOR20050714&articleId=692

[BelegStrongbow]

This is perhaps special pleading. It is my understanding that more than a few Patriarchs were removed by assassination, which I would think counts as 'advancing one's faith by murder', even if the murderers were not necessarily orthodox Orthodox (as odd as that sounds).

In Christ,
Deacon Paul+

[Graves]

The only Patriarch I am aware of who so suffered was the Holy New Hieromartyr Gregory V, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. He was hanged by the Turks over the door of the Patriarchal Residence. Is that whom you refer to? Another was executed by the Romans. That was St. Ignatius the Godbearer of Antioch, thrown to the lions in the Colliseum in Rome.

[Vicomte13]

Go back and check the history of the persecution of the pagans in the East in the 400s, 500s and 600s AD. It's pretty ugly, and Orthodox.

[Claud]

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, we now have an accurate definition of what the Left defines as DIVERSITY!!!

Indeed!!!

[BIRDS]

A "priest" is someone who has taken and represents (and practices) the Catholic faith.

Protestant clerics are "ministers."

I realize that some in the ECUSA still mistankenly promote their clerical positions as being "priests," but it's a misnomer.

The ECUSA is a protestant "church" and therefore, their clerics are minisers.

Not priests.

"Priest" is a Catholic moniker, a title to indicate a man who is ordained by the Catholic Church to represent the Catholic faithful.

Not that anyone asked, I realize, just saying from a point of clarity.

Episcopal ministers, especially, some of them at least, tend to abuse the term of "Priest" and it is entirely misleading -- which may be the point, I've often wondered.