Episcopal Priest Divorces for Younger Man

[seashale76]

Without even touching on all of the other issues, my main question is, they allow their priests to remarry? Once one is ordained- there is no marriage. Marriage has to occur before ordination. This issue alone should require a defrocking.

 

[SuperCloud]

I don't even know how much younger the new husband is. I'm assuming he's a grown up. The story sounded like it wanted to stir up trouble about a preacher marrying a guy. If the guy is so much younger. They should have put his age in the article.

No, this much I agree with you about. Which annoyed me. I like to be able to make up my own mind what "much younger is." The guy could be 57 for all I know but the paper is trying to give you the impression the guy is 35 or maybe 22 years-old.

The liberal news did similar covering the whole priest sex scandal thing. Knowing full well a lot of these victims were 16 and 17 year-old (honestly, some likely complicit morally) instead of giving the specific age the articles routinely used the vague word of "child" instead, knowing it conjures up images of small, sweat, little 7 and 12 year-olds.

I don't hear a complaining ex wife.

That's because she may not have been given that kind of forum or declined to be interviewed or make a statement. That does not mean she is happy with the situation. Anyone could play the same game with adult female rape victims. "I don't hear her complaining." Just because there are no news stories quoting her or she declines to be interviewed.

Just mainly church people complaining about him being gay and marrying a guy.

Ah, yes, let's switch the blame. I love how people are not objective bug militantly to their ideologies.

It has to be the Church goers that are in the wrong and this preacher the innocent one.

If he wasn't a preacher marrying a guy. This wouldn't have even made news.

If he was a heterosexual priest divorcing his wife for a younger woman it would make national news through the liberal press.

When that Catholic priest left the priesthood to marry a woman--the one that was some radio personality or something (I never heard of him)--it was carried as news across the country. And he wasn't even married to a woman and then booted her.

Catholic priests--unknowns--that come out as gay and leave the priesthood, write up things that make the news all the time. Yahoo news has posted them--I think Huffington Post has.

I can't even complain that he married a 19 year old, since there's no age in the article. In the end of the day . Even if he married a 19 year old women. Why would we care? It doesn't even say why they divorced. Also if I never seen this story on here. I would have never even seen it.

Male and female feminists would care. They'd switch into mode about how reduction, telling boys and men what they should find sexually attractive, works. Apparently, only if they're heterosexual males. Telling me and pontificating to me that I'm supposed to find 300 lb women sexy, women that look like men as sexy, is supposed to change what I find sexy. But if I'm gay supposedly telling me to find a man that looks like a woman as sexy is anathema. Preaching and indoctrination does not work. There ought be more media videos and articles preaching to gay boys and gay men that they ought find obese men as sexy as your typical muscular gay model. Not going to happen though.

 

[SuperCloud]

Got that backwards, didn't you?

Fox News does not admit to being blatantly biased. That's just silly to say. And it has a dozen or so Liberal commentators appearing regularly, in order to give substance to what the network actually "admits," which is that it is "fair and balanced." Quite obviously, to claim such is NOT to claim to be biased.

But if we now turn to MSNBC for a comparison, you can go whole days without having any topic come up other than "Here's what's wrong about the Republicans." And CNN is not a lot different from that, although less obvious.

Well... I meant by that that they blatantly say they represent the conservative viewpoint to counter the liberal view point. I interpret that to be telling me they are bias.

News--aside from editorials (a bit with human interest pieces too)--aren't supposed to have "conservative" or "liberal" viewpoints or slanting. They're simply supposed to report the facts as they come in (and ethically you are supposed to double or even triple check those facts).

 

[SuperCloud]

The OP is an interesting little dance.

It begins with the "news" report from the NY Post, then moves rather quickly to a fantasy about how some imaginary feminists would react if the situation were a completely different situation from the one reported, and then proceeds rather quickly to a defense of statutory rape.

Fascinating.

Yes, I believe it was perfectly moral for black people to ride in the front of the bus in the US South during the 1950s, even if it was illegal.

 

[Supreme]

Are you allowed to get divorced as preacher in the Episcopal church?

 

[Albion]

Well... I meant by that that they blatantly say they represent the conservative viewpoint to counter the liberal view point. I interpret that to be telling me they are bias.

You know, I have not heard that on Fox, but I have heard (daily) that they claim to be "fair and balanced," and that the viewer should make up his own mind. It's also beyond denying that there are a number of known and active liberals participating in almost every political discussion. How this can be turned into an admission of Conservative bias in the way you are saying, I don't know.

News--aside from editorials (a bit with human interest pieces too)--aren't supposed to have "conservative" or "liberal" viewpoints or slanting. They're simply supposed to report the facts as they come in (and ethically you are supposed to double or even triple check those facts).

OK, but none of the networks do that with their news programs. Not ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, none of them.

 

[brewmama]

Tabloid publications are not in business for the dissemination of real news. This is not serious news.

It is serious if you still have any belief that the Episcopal Church maintains any morals.

 

[kit]

Are you allowed to get divorced as preacher in the Episcopal church?

The Episcopal church is founded on allowing divorce! Ever heard of Ann Bolyne?

 

[mindlight]

Are you allowed to get divorced as preacher in the Episcopal church?

Simple answer yes.

I was interested to find that one of the foremost exponents of gay marriage in the Episcopalian church Gene Robinson recently divorced his partner Mark Andrews. He keeps his job as bishop.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/libr...hire-bishop-gene-robinson-and-partner-divorce

However the gay marriage rite is not permitted by all bishops so whether or not the minister in this case can marry a manin church depends on how liberal his bishop is.

 

[Armoured]

The Episcopal church is founded on allowing divorce! Ever heard of Ann Bolyne?

I think you mean Catherine of Aragon. Henry quite famously DIDN'T divorce Boleyn.

 

[mindlight]

I think you mean Catherine of Aragon. Henry quite famously DIDN'T divorce Boleyn.

Divorced beheaded died, divorced beheaded survived was the sequence. Since Anne was Number 2 think she lost her head

 

[Albion]

The Episcopal church is founded on allowing divorce! Ever heard of Ann Bolyne?

That's so inaccurate, I hate to tell you. And irrelevant to this thread. Perhaps I could just appeal to you to resist the urge to repeat religious slurs before you get the facts.

 

[SuperCloud]

And to show what I was saying about liberal news sources choosing news that is "private matter" to be news for the public:

This today on yahoo news:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lutheran-bishop-comes-out-as-gay-after_55b6637ce4b0074ba5a54ac5

Excerpt.

A bishop in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America came out as gay during the denomination's recent youth conference in Detroit.

Bishop Kevin Kanouse, head of the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana area of the ELCA, released a letter to church leaders explaining his announcement, saying he hoped his revelation would inspire hope in young people who may be struggling with their sexuality or with "other issues of self-esteem, rejection, and self-loathing."

“We are keeping Bishop Kanouse, his family and members of the ELCA Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod in prayer," ELCA presiding bishop Elizabeth Eaton told The Huffington Post.

Kanouse said in his letter he had been living in denial for decades and had recently come out to his wife, to whom he plans to remain married.

The bold highlight my emphasis.

I give this guy credit for doing his best to honor his marital vows (assuming he is doing that). He's doing a lot more in that department than a lot of married heterosexual men.

 

[kit]

I think you mean Catherine of Aragon. Henry quite famously DIDN'T divorce Boleyn.

No. I mean Ann Boleyn. He "divorced" Catherine to marry Boleyn.

 

[Albion]

No. I mean Ann Boleyn. He "divorced" Catherine to marry Boleyn.

I believe her name is usually spelled differently, but that was not the point of my comment.

The church in England was about 1400+ years old at the time of Henry's dispute with the Papacy. No new church was created. But you'll say he wanted a divorce and so broke with the Catholic Church over it, but the long history of the Church in Britain shows that it had been independent of Rome for most of its history. For the first several centuries, historians say, it had almost no contact with the Roman church, and even the Magna Carta, 300 years before Henry, declared the church to be free. What Henry did was reassert its historic autonomy.

So then you might say that he changed its beliefs (which is why I mentioned Vatican II when your church changed ITS beliefs)...except that he did not do that. Henry was a dedicated Catholic, doctrinally speaking, and opposed any move in that direction. He was never, by the way, declared to be a heretic by the Roman Church.

Finally, the Pope ordered his followers to leave the church in England and set up their own Roman Catholic chapels, meaning that if anyone left anyone else, the Roman Catholic Church broke from the Church of England! In short, your jab was wrong in almost every way possible.

 

[SuperCloud]

I believe her name is usually spelled differently, but that was not the point of my comment.

The church in England was about 1400+ years old at the time of Henry's dispute with the Papacy. No new church was created. But you'll say he wanted a divorce and so broke with the Catholic Church over it, but the long history of the Church in Britain shows that it had been independent of Rome for most of its history.

The Church of Milwaukee is independent of Rome. All Catholic churches outside of the City of Rome are independent of Rome. So, I don't get your point, but I see you're Anglican and appealing to the "Rome" thing as if Rio de Janiero and Toronto are somehow being micro managed by "Rome."

The sex scandal in the Catholic Church in the United States gives enough indication that the American Catholic Church is independent of Rome.

For the first several centuries, historians say, it had almost no contact with the Roman church, and even the Magna Carta, 300 years before Henry, declared the church to be free. What Henry did was reassert its historic autonomy.

Back to the "Roman" thing. The Pope is a Bishop and Bishop of one city: Rome. Not Cleveland or Cape Town, South Africa.

Kind of like every Governor in the USA is a President of his state but the US President is a Governor that presides over them. That's kind of what the Pope is in relation to his brother Bishops.

England had as much contact with "Rome" (evident in your acknowledgement of the controversy and the Pope's role in the English Church) as the Americas did. In fact I'd argue England had more. When the Jesuits traveled out into "Oregon Country" before that territory became part of the United States, it was still dominated by tribal war-like Indians and through the tick forests mail took possibly a year to arrive if it ever arrived at all. Yet the Jesuits remained part of the Catholic Church.

 

[Albion]

The Church of Milwaukee is independent of Rome. All Catholic churches outside of the City of Rome are independent of Rome. So, I don't get your point

...and I don't get that point. It's some technicality or purely theoretical item you have in mind, I take it. There is no way to seriously claim that any Roman Catholic diocese or parish is truly 'independent' of the Vatican.

but I see you're Anglican and appealing to the "Rome" thing as if Rio de Janiero and Toronto are somehow being micro managed by "Rome."

Actually, I did nothing more than correct Kit's mistaken ideas about the history of the English Church.

 

[SuperCloud]

...and I don't get that point. It's some technicality or purely theoretical item you have in mind, I take it. There is no way to seriously claim that any Roman Catholic diocese or parish is truly 'independent' of Rome.

Archdiocese are run by their Archbishops. Not the Pope in Rome.

The Catholic Church was one of the most efficiently run international organizations on earth because it has been a lot more decentralized than what most people think.

It's more decentralized than the US Presidency over the 50 states of the USA. Does Obama run Chicago? No. And the Pope in Rome runs the archdiocese of Chicago even less than Obama runs Chicago.

 

[Albion]

Archdiocese are run by their Archbishops. Not the Pope in Rome.

They are agents of the Vatican and, ultimately, the Pope. You don't even get to BE an archbishop except for being tapped for the job by the Vatican....and if you suppose that, once in office, that man has complete discretion as to what to teach or how to run the archdiocese, recent history shows otherwise.

 

[Cloture]

I just got done reading this whole thread. A few thoughts...

1) I'm surprised it took an episcopalian priest this long to do that, and I truly do not feel any sense of surprise. Knowing what I know about NY Post, that paper did not promote this for news or for any concern about our cultural condition. It was click bait that clearly worked.

2) Divorce and remarriage in the church is a big deal? A lot of stuff going wrong is a big deal these days. A LOT of churches right now are doing the philosophical equivalent of playing Monopoly without use of money. Just spin and tap the board for the sake of going in circles. No consequence, no rent due, no ownership of property, just spinning and tapping for the fun of it. But now we're supposed to be upset because they're also using chess pieces in place of the metal top hat. Maybe it's time for people to wake up and realize it doesn't much matter because they stopped playing Monopoly a long time ago.

3) The antidote for militant feminism is not for resentful men to pick up a victim complex. I'm tired of hearing about how bad men are, and I'm also tired of hearing about how bad women are. I recently heard Francis Anfuso say, "God is omnipresent and even He will not be in attendance at your next pity party."

4) As for the Church of England thing, I hate when we have to choose between two extreme narratives about anything. Henry VIII was a dastardly maverick who told Rome to shove it, or he was a harmless lamb whom Rome just misunderstood. Like most things in life, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

5) I can't believe we're seriously arguing over whether Catholic bishops in America are beholden to Rome. That's like trying to claim the federal government in DC doesn't tell California what to do. Recent SCOTUS rulings suggest otherwise.