tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post7734089927360867220..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: Episcopal Fundamentalists Take Their Toys and RunMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-77481814564770856602008-08-23T16:38:00.000-05:002008-08-23T16:38:00.000-05:00Did anyone mention that the Episcopal Bishop of th...Did anyone mention that the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin is a "cured homosexual?" It does not seem to appear in the comments, which I thought were well-known. Apparently not. Yes, God cured him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-66128713568621401972007-12-24T15:52:00.000-06:002007-12-24T15:52:00.000-06:00Update from the Bay Area Reporter:http://ebar.com/...Update from the Bay Area Reporter:<BR/><BR/>http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2543Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-54609620992824424352007-12-13T10:37:00.000-06:002007-12-13T10:37:00.000-06:00For clarification, my background also includes my ...For clarification, my background also includes my formally joinging the Episcopal Church after attending numreous classes and exclusively attending that denomination's services for several years. <BR/><BR/>I still occasionally attend Episcopal Church services even though I have formally joined the ELCA. The ELCA is in full communion with the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA.<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael-in-Norfolkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06330888799107186550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-2052953857252505402007-12-12T20:40:00.000-06:002007-12-12T20:40:00.000-06:00Michael-in-Norfolk gives us his background, which ...Michael-in-Norfolk gives us his background, which thus raises the question of his experience from which to comment on an Episcopal diocese in the great San Joaquin Valley of California. Has Michael set foot in the San Joaquin Valley? Has he been an Episcopalian? If so, low, broad, or high church? Does he know the by-laws of the church about which he writes from 3,000 miles away? I've been to Virginia. I grew up in San Joaquin Valley. I have direct experience with both. Including Episocpal Churches in both jurisdictions. My experience does not comport with his, but I suppose we have to accept what "he believes," because he believes it.<BR/><BR/>As far as Dan's comments are concerned, I reiterate that within the Catholic tradition they are indisputable. I refer to my post on J. H. Newman and the pillars of Catholic orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Introduce an empirical and deductively <I>a posteriori</I> logic, and Dan's comments are beyond silly. But, he's absolutely right that the moral law is co-determined in Catholicism by the Church's Natural Law Theory, in which Aquinas's theory in the S.T., I-II, 94, i-v is articulated. Within that context, Dan's comments are as valid as any other "believers," since it is all outside experience. All Christian, Jewish, and Islamic "faith" claims are so situated.<BR/><BR/>It's an odd juxtaposition to how we "experience" the world. Dan choses to experience it through the church's a priori, despite the inherent contradictions and impossibility, but which is fully endorsed by his church. Michael chooses to interpret a news story from afar through his childnood lens in which to vilify his Catholicism, as if Anglicans submit to Catholic tradition and ontology.<BR/><BR/>My point is more basic. Before we spout about things we "believe" and about which we have little or no direct acquaintance, it behooves all of us to try and understand issues from the perspective from which they evolve. I can attest to my direct and indirect experience, but I also know my limits in critiquing subjects I have minimal understanding of. Once acquainted, we all possess the <B>capability</B> to evaluate critically the claims of others. The paradigm of such efforts can be found in many places, not the least of which is David Hume's <I>Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.</I> Unlike others, Hume accepts the description of faith claims by the claimants, and then evaluates those claims against the modern epistemological criteria for understanding. J. L. Mackie does the same with his <I>Miracle of Theism.</I> But unless one understands and presumes the standards of the "other's" claims on it's terms, I daresay we should not be critiquing what we do not understand ourselves.<BR/><BR/>I am not a Christian, but I do try to understand Christians' claim from within their various ontological and epistemological presumptions. I am not persuaded by any religious claims, but I believe it is my responsibility to be "open" to every possibility, without prejudging it all by standards that do not apply. That is the requirement of a "provisional epistemology," which philosophers like Karl Popper insist we take, rather than the rigid dogmas of "scientism" or "metaphysics."<BR/><BR/>But metaphysics and scientism are not on par from any perspective. Even Popper recognizes "evidence" independent of one's claims counts for more than simply "believing."<BR/><BR/>The harsh reality that many refuse to accept, despite the <I>evidence,</I> and notwithstanding their casuistry to try and explain it away, is that Judeo-Christo-Islamic propositions are all "faith" statements, not a single one of which can be validated. And among those propositions are a bevy of condemnations of homophiles and homophilia. Queer Theory and Queer Religionists will not make those textual claims "go away," however one might dispute their claims today.<BR/><BR/>Saint Paul and Jude, echoing Leviticus, condemn "unnatural lusts," clearly more accurate than the words "homosexual." For their linguistic accuracy, neither is given credit, but two males and two females do not engage in "sex," and no biblical author claims they do. Only a homophile and the psychological industry created that "myth," which the latter insisted it knew the aetiology and cures for. Religion never made those preposterous claims; it simply claimed they were "unnatural," and against a divine plan, which psychologist up through the Seventies promoted as a "disease."<BR/><BR/>Homophilia is not "unnatural," and it is not a "disease." Those myths science and philosophy force the Psyche Folks to abandon in 1973. Whether or not it is a "sin" I defer to those who "believe" in sins, and gods who determine them, to establish. I can quarrel with the Bible's empirical claims, insofar as they are empirical and rational. The point ignored is that NONE of the biblical claims are empirical or rational. So arguing for or against them is itself irrational.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-26687944213241570322007-12-12T17:39:00.000-06:002007-12-12T17:39:00.000-06:00First, by way of background, I am a former Catholi...First, by way of background, I am a former Catholic, altar boy for 10 years, 4th Degree Knight of Columbus, and one time faithful daily mass attendant. My leaving the Catholic Church for the initially the Episcopal Church was a function of my disgust with the Church’s denigration of gays and more importantly, the utter moral bankruptcy of the Church hierarchy that was displayed in the world wide sex abuse scandal. To date, no bishop, cardinal or Pope (John XXIII issued a statement as far back as 1962 calling for secrecy backed by the threat of excommunication to protect the Church’s reputation) who knew of the abuse and fostered the cover up has been de-frocked. The Dallas Morning News calculated that at least 1/3 to ½ of the U. S. Bishops had assisted in cover ups. In virtually any other organization, high officials involved in such a cover would have been fired or demoted. Not so in the Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/>As for Dan's comment that my views are:<BR/><BR/>"... tiresome, as anyone with a basic understanding of Christianity has learned about the difference between OT Law (Torah) and the enduring moral law written on our hearts (Rom 2:12-16). <BR/><BR/>Such statements are typical of those who do not want to have to give serious thought and analysis to issues like that of gays, including the possibility that God made us this way on purpose as part of his divine design o the universe and all things in it. Denigrate the speaker of opposing view rather than seriously debate it.<BR/><BR/>As for the snide remark that my comments are “plagiarized material," I am sorry to tell him, but these are my own thoughts and analysis after much reading, studying and contemplation. I would venture to say that many gays going through the “coming out” process spend more time and reflection on religion, scripture and church tradition than do most straight individuals who are not forced to have to reconcile their faith with the condemnation put out by those who prefer to mindlessly recite what they have been spoon fed. I stand by my analysis.<BR/><BR/>As for Dan’s remark “If God repeatedly condemns homosexual sex,” in point of fact we are talking about a few passages out of the Bible (a few in the Old Testament and a few passages from Paul), I hardly define that as “repeatedly.” Moreover, with all due respect Paul’s epistles were written by a former Pharisee who could never wholly let go of the holiness Code of Leviticus.<BR/><BR/>In short, Dan’s mindset is exactly that described in Mr. Bayly’s post.Michael-in-Norfolkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06330888799107186550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-11401065976281751862007-12-12T15:48:00.000-06:002007-12-12T15:48:00.000-06:00I rather like Dan's response. Once one enters the ...I rather like Dan's response. Once one enters the realm of the subjectively metaphysical and invests it with authority, what can anyone else do? <BR/><BR/>Dan is apparently unaware of the Catholic tradition that insists faith and reason can never conflict, since both ensue from the same Logos.<BR/><BR/>But if all the Logos claims are immaterial and without physical evidence, and if all the "reasons" are from the <I>a priori,</I> without benefit of experience <I>(a posteriori),</I> then reason and faith do not need to conflict, are are quite capable of mutually supporting each other's claims.<BR/><BR/>But ONCE deductive logic and evidence of a physical kind are both required for a claim -- which is the principal foundation of modern epistemology, then these conflicts can only be reconciled with a posteriori deductive logic, not by appeals to the a priori.<BR/><BR/>Thus, when an individual retorts, "well, it's what I believe," it matters not how irrational it is. And if I believe the Bible, and the Bible tells me virgins conceive, suns stand still, and dead people resurrect, who are you to tell me otherwise? It's what I believe!<BR/><BR/>Not since the 14th century has this type of thought prevailed. In today's America, it is dominate. So when one "believes" tooth fairies are divine messengers that rape little girls for a deity, apparently that has credibility by simply insisting, "it's what I believe."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-73672057221937417362007-12-12T15:33:00.000-06:002007-12-12T15:33:00.000-06:00Those questions asked reminded me of an episode of...Those questions asked reminded me of <A HREF="http://www.westwingtranscripts.com/search.php?flag=getTranscript&id=25&keyword=homosexuality" REL="nofollow">an episode</A> of The West Wing in which Presiden Bartlett asked similar ones of a homophobic talk radio host :-) .....<BR/><BR/>BARTLET:<BR/>Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had<BR/>you here.<BR/>I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned<BR/>in Exodus 21:7.<BR/>(small chuckles from the guests) She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent<BR/>Italian, and<BR/>always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for<BR/>her be? While<BR/>thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, LeoO McGarry,<BR/>insists on working<BR/>on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I<BR/>morally obligated<BR/>to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really<BR/>important,<BR/>'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a<BR/>dead pig makes<BR/>us unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington<BR/>Redskins<BR/>still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town<BR/>really have to be<BR/>together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by<BR/>side? Can I burn<BR/>my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two<BR/>different threads?crystalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05681674503952991492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-66312639984654764252007-12-12T08:56:00.000-06:002007-12-12T08:56:00.000-06:00Mr. Bayly,I think your dichotomy between Scripture...Mr. Bayly,<BR/><BR/>I think your dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition in Catholic teaching is false. Specifically, the Church does not shy away from referencing the Bible when reaffirming its moral teachings. The Catechism is FILLED with scripture. The <A HREF="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm" REL="nofollow">article on the moral law</A> is just one example. Page either direction and you will find scripture on every page.<BR/><BR/>By "fundamentalism" you seem to mean the belief in enduring moral truths. In that case, the Catholic Church is certainly fundamentalist. Mr. Hamer states that orthodox Episcopalians "refuse to recognize that modern day scientific knowledge of human sexuality and its inherent nature were unknown and not understood by the ignorant (by today’s standards), nomadic, tribal writers of the Old Testament." I've never understood this argument. If God repeatedly condemns homosexual sex, and Christians have always understood it to be sinful, then what does learning about the scientific reasons for homosexual feelings have to do with the morality of the behavior? Doesn't God have sufficient knowledge of the topic to condemn it universally? I have a degree in physics and teach science, and I don't know of any scientific principle which abrogates moral laws revealed by God.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry to tell you, but Micheal Hamer's "excellent column" is little more than plagarized material that's been sweeping around the net for years. <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?q=A+friend+of+mine+feels+that+even+though+eating+shellfish+is+an+abomination&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBS" REL="nofollow">Check Google</A> for another 21,800 versions. The response is tiresome, as anyone with a basic understanding of Christianity has learned about the difference between OT Law (Torah) and the enduring moral law written on our hearts (Rom 2:12-16). When Christians make this kind of argument it's clear they just don't believe in the Scriptures.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10829574522791907940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-41848686669751872752007-12-11T16:20:00.000-06:002007-12-11T16:20:00.000-06:00An important distinction: Except for the Diocese o...An important distinction: Except for the Diocese of San Joaquin, the ECUSA on the West Coast tends toward "high church," unlike the East Coast which tends toward "low church."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-20486500197300779102007-12-11T16:18:00.000-06:002007-12-11T16:18:00.000-06:00Since the Diocese of San Joaquin is the diocese of...Since the Diocese of San Joaquin is the diocese of my birthplace and parents, perhaps I can speak to the diocese's moves. <BR/><BR/>In the Seventies and Eighties, two parishes thrived with multiple services. Within the last five years, one parish folded, the other is minimally attended. The Religious Right is infecting and affecting even traditional Christianity -- largely by atrophy.<BR/><BR/>Since Episcopalians elect their bishops, the San Joaquin Diocese is threatened for its existence by Roman Catholicism on one end and Evangelicalism on the other. Mainstream Protestant parishes no longer exist, save for a small Congregational parish -- with the lesbian minister.<BR/><BR/>One thing Episcopalians are noted for is their latitudinarianism. They are not a "confessional" body, like most Protestants, and their minimal structures, such as the prayer book, episcopacy, and . . . , allow for flexibility. <BR/><BR/>For many people looking for "jazzed faith" with rock services, the Episcopal service is too complicated for the naive (imagine the reaction to a Catholic Mass). It is thoroughly impotent by a need to "learn" first. It's RC appearances often give a hint of clericalism.<BR/><BR/>Many of my early mentors were affiliated with the two Episcopal parishes. Like them, death strikes when life is over. The Diocese of San Joaquin is set in a largely rural agri-belt with no special value toward education, and as the staid Episcopal mindset goes against the popular grain, it is dying too. In many ways, it resembles the Deep South more than California of the Sixties (allowing for rock, drugs, and sex, of course). <BR/><BR/>For the record, the rector of Saint Paul's was the first priest I heard espouse "legalization" of same-sex relations from the pulpit in the Sixties (it was then criminalized). But the days when WASPs did the Episcopal Church for social connections and political ambitions without any further obligations is taking its toll. The effort to expand religious consciousness taxes the mind. Partying for god seems like more fun, and it <B> divides sheep from goats -- the all important task of religion, </B>which Episcopalians have begun to stop separating. The Country Club Church is no longer for "us," so the migration is to other divides -- and Catholicism and Evangelicalism welcomes both.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com