Comments on: Why the Pope Must Love Him Some Gene Robinson

By: jamey w. bennett

jamey w. bennett — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:13:13 +0000

Mr. Shore,
I prefer to go by The Dude. His Duder works, too.

The Stuarts? Bah! The Tudors were so much more fun. All the Stuarts really gave us was the KJV & the English Civil War. I'd compliment them on the KJV, except the KJV Only crowd (in their overalls) has figured out how to use YouTube. Stuarts = FAIL. Tudors= WIN.
JWB

By: Moonshadow

Moonshadow — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:15:40 +0000

Your post just made me wish, even more than before, an African cardinal had been elected to the Chair of Peter. Thank you for that. Peace.

By: textjunkie

textjunkie — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:02:19 +0000

I am amused that the Pope's message was "No Bishops!!" which, given the plethora of new bishops within the ACNA/etc. crowd, means he won't get any of the real trouble makers.

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:20:37 +0000

Are we sure Dan Brown isn't behind all this? Sounds like great material for his next book.

By: dac

dac — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:57:19 +0000

well, perhaps they might be a little more disillusioned with the Anglican Church than just on that one person….

By: John Shore

John Shore — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:15:45 +0000

Mr. Bennett: Oh, sure. Come over and just KNOW what you're talking about, why doncha? Bastard!

You do raise mighty fine points, especially about the OM. "It only requires moving a marker here or there around" is a wonderful way of stating that truth.

As to the relative effects of gay vs. women's ordination. That same question was raised today over on Boar's Head Tavern (group blog run by Internet Monk, which you probably know but just in case). I'll put in here the way that exchange went, cuz … well, cuz I'm Just That Lazy.

First someone said: "John S: it’s not one gay bishop, it’s an unknown number of women bishops. At least as regards C of E Anglo-Catholics, for whom homosexuality has (to put it mildly, not to mention circumspectly) never been as much of a hot-button issue as women’s ordination."

To which I smarmily (sp?) replied: "You take Gene Robinson out of the picture, and this thing wouldn’t have happened. Not today, anyway. You’re right, of course: the ordination of women is a massive stress issue. But it’s the momentum of the world-wide outrage over Robinson that finally pushed open the Vatican doors."

I then added the bit which I afterward attached as an "update" in the original post above.

Aaaaaaaaand scene.

And you, Mr. Bennett, appear to have one serious blog. Which I am now officially looking forward to checking out.

Oh–and I meant Mary Stuart. I always go with the sheer, unqualified losers.

By: jamey w. bennett

jamey w. bennett — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:49:21 +0000

I enjoyed this commentary, but I do have to take exception to a couple things. First of all, those Anglicans I know who will move into Rome are going to move not because of a gay bishop, but because of women's ordination. Secondly, they will move because many Anglicans are already basically Roman Catholics. The Oxford Movement of the 19th century basically was a recovery of English Catholicism, and the vast majority of American Anglicans, at least, have been heavily influenced by the Oxford Movement. Once the OM theology is digested, it only requires moving a marker here or there around.

Lastly, I'm not sure about the reference to Mary, Queen of Scots (Stuart). Do you mean Mary I of England (Tudor)? I guess they were both Catholics, but it was Mary (Tudor) I of England who sought to restore Roman Catholicism to England. Mary (Stuart) Queen of Scots didn't get any closer to restoring Catholicism than the chopping block. The Stuart-Tudor lines are complicated…

I enjoy this blog, btw. Keep up the good work, bro.

By: Ryan Cordle

Ryan Cordle — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:24:48 +0000

This really won't change much of anything. Rome is really just saying "It's OK to become Catholic now"

By: Gina

Gina — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:27:07 +0000

I think it's fair to come to the point that John did based on the statement made by the Roman Catholic Church themselves, which states "responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the ordination of women and the election of openly gay bishops." John didn't make the connection, he just reported it.

As for the reference to Mary, Queen of Scots – I agree, John. It has been hundreds of years, and yet the Pope is opening his arms to the symbolic "prodigal son" of the Anglican Church – whose inception caused wars, death, and enmity for more than a few years. Kudos to them for sure, but it IS a big move and very surprising………any amount of review of history itself will acknowledge that.

By: John Shore

John Shore — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:58:11 +0000

You're right, Gerry. I gave this post a title perhaps too flippant, but I agree with you: both have a lot to learn from the other.