Good riddance: Fort Worth Episcopal priests want to align with Catholic church

2 Comments

1. 

   Hardy Haberman on August 14, 2008 at 10:59 am

   I guess it was only a matter of time before this diocese defected.
   The Southern Baptists will never join the Catholic Church. It’s all about that communion wine. Don’t you know that Jesus only drank Welch’s Grape Juice?

2. 

   Jon Garinn on August 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm

   It’s interesting to note that four of the six “Anglican Use” parishes in the U.S. are in Texas. These parishes are former Episcopal congregations that joined the Roman Catholic Church while maintaining some of the features of Anglicanism, such as a “high church” liturgy. The “Pastoral Provision” allowing them to do so was issued by Pope John Paul II in 1980. The first Anglican Use parish, Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio, was formed three years later when a group of lay people decided they wanted to form a parish under the Provision. Many of these parishes are ministered to by former Episcopal priests, most of whom are married (the Provision also permits the ordination of married Episcopal priests into the Roman Catholic priesthood).
   The predominance of Anglican Use parishes in Texas may be related to the fact that some of the fiercest Episcopal resistance to perceived liberalizing currents has erupted here.
   But this is nothing new — and it’s not simply a reaction to Gene Robinson’s election as bishop. Episcopal congregations and priests have had the opportunity to align with the Catholic Church for nearly three decades. The Provision was issued because of resistance to the Episcopal Church’s ordination of women, which commenced in 1976.
   So, are the Episcopal priests who want to align with the Catholic Church simply homophobic or sexist or both? Gene Robinson shed some light on this an interview he had with me last year:
   “It has to do with an internalized misogyny and the demise of patriarchy,” he said.
   Misogyny, he explained, is a form of prejudice wherein the male is considered superior to the female.
   “For the misogynist, the greatest affront to being male is to allow someone to treat you like a female. That’s why same-sex couples are often asked which one is ‘the man’ and which one is ‘the woman’ in the relationship. The classic defense in gay bashing is ‘he made a pass at me.’ If we locked up all the men who’ve made passes at women, there would be very few men left on the streets.”
   In terms of the Bible and religion, Robinson explained, from the time Eve gave Adam the forbidden fruit to Paul’s insistence on female subjection, women have been considered subservient to men.
   “Gay people are so despised because we’re perceived as upsetting the natural order of things. When Mark and I dance, we have to decide who leads. In large measure, straight people don’t have to debate those things — the culture has already decided those roles. That’s why misogyny is so deeply embedded in us. Modern education and political correctness have taught us not to sound so misogynistic, but it’s there. Yet as more GLBT couples come out and give witness to the true mutuality of their relationships, they are having a positive impact. Society always moves forward when its world-view is insufficient to explain its current reality.”
   Patriarchy, he said, is a structuring of society on the basis of family units, in which fathers have responsibility for and leadership of the family.
   “We’re beginning to see the end of patriarchy,” he said, “and that manifests itself in hatred toward GLBT people.”
   “Look at it this way,” Robinson continued, “in the 1960s, people of color demanded and received civil rights. In the 1970s, it was women. Now it’s GLBT people. Prior to the 20th century, in almost all of Western society, straight white men were making most of the decisions and now the jig is up. Is it any wonder that people who’ve been so conditioned to believe that patriarchy is the way of the world would also be so reluctant to accept change?”