Comments for Rather Not Blog

Comment on He who justifies, deifies by Eric

Eric — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:18:38 +0000

I am really enjoying your blog – keep it up.

Comment on Banned by Susan Peterson

Susan Peterson — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:08:39 +0000

I’ll be honest; I myself shudder to hear the word “priestess” applied to Anne Kennedy, because there is nothing pagan about her as far as her beliefs or her character are concerned. Whatever she thinks she is doing on the rare occasions when she celebrates, it is not what Catholics believe a priest does. By “whatever” I don’t mean to be dismissive, I mean that I don’t really understand other than Catholic understandings of the Eucharist. I think I have some idea of other than Catholic understandings of the Eucharistic presence, but I don’t really understand other than Catholic understandings of the Eucharistic action. But I know Anne doesn’t think she acts “in the person of Christ” as a Catholic priest does. I know that Anne is a serious and devout Christian woman. And Matt isn’t married to her qua “priestess” he is married to the woman and person Anne. It is too easy to forget that when her ecclesiastical status is an issue of public controversy.
I see Matt’s views on the Eucharist as having changed a bit over the past few years, for instance from seeing John VI as not about the Eucharist at all to seeing that at least the second half of it must be.
It is amazing that he has any time for theological thought at all given the stress of leaving the Episcopal church and losing the building, and now having the diocese accuse him of financial malfeasance because people gave money to the St. Matthias society and the church spent down the assets that were to be confiscated. But I do see some movement. It is much better for such movement to take place without a whole lot of public scrutiny and people jumping all over every sentence. If a change in one little piece of one’s ideas is going to require a change in another place, this might require a year’s reflection and study. There is no point in telling someone that because he has taken one step along a road that he doesn’t know the ending of, or what route he is going to take, that there is only one road with no exit ramps and the destination is inescapable. Nothing like that for making someone dig in his feet.
Susan Peterson

Comment on Banned by A Further Note on “Priestess” « Rather Not Blog

A Further Note on “Priestess” « Rather Not Blog — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:37:04 +0000

[...] Rather Not Blog All Things Anglican « Banned [...]

Comment on Banned by Katherine

Katherine — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:59:56 +0000

I have seen comments by Matt Kennedy+ about his new outlook on WO on his blog. He’s been clear.

Comment on Banned by Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:54:12 +0000

Susan Peterson: “It isn’t Anne, I don’t think. She isn’t the kind to get up on her high horse and “take offense.” But perhaps it is Matt being protective towards Anne, even when Anne is plenty tough enough not to need it?”

It’s hard to know. Matt Kennedy+ who posted the thread at SFIF from which IRNS was banned is in an interesting situation for two reasons:

(1) He is married to a priestess.

(2) He is now against WO. See this comment by him on this thread.

Excerpt: “Personally, I have come to the point where I believe WO should be ended on biblical grounds. I think those who are currently ordained ought to be the last. I used to hold to a limited WO position…ie women could be ordained but not fill headship roles (rector or bishop etc).

Now, I think that position is flawed. I do not know what authority or role women ought to hold in the Church, but I no longer have confidence that ordained presbyter is one of them.

What am I going to do about that? I continue to believe it is not an essential matter but now that I think I see the matter in a different light Anne and I have some things to think through together and we are presently doing that.”

Has Matt Kennedy+ let the Stand Firm readership know of his change of mind, and that he’s now against WO?

If so, when? If not, why not?

Comment on Banned by Susan Peterson

Susan Peterson — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:44:02 +0000

And now both you and Mr. Tighe have been banned from Stand Firm for the same offense, which makes Stand Firm much the poorer in my view.
I wish you had compromised, not challenged Matt, and used “priest”, and “purported to ordain” and so on. Then you could have continued to bring your arguments to the discussion there. As for stupid arguments, life is like that. I haven’t seen any “Junia” at Stand Firm lately, though.

I agree that Fenelon spoke should at least have had the comment deleted and should have been warned, like the person who imported the word in a quotation.

I also agree that ’some find it offensive’ is a poor reason for a censorship policy. “Some” find an awful lot of things offensive.
Why is it that this particular “some” gets kowtowed to?

It isn’t Anne, I don’t think. She isn’t the kind to get up on her high horse and “take offense.” But perhaps it is Matt being protective towards Anne, even when Anne is plenty tough enough not to need it?

Susan Peterson

Comment on Down the Memory Hole or, What’s In a Word? by Banned « Rather Not Blog

Banned « Rather Not Blog — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:34:06 +0000

[...] My more considered thoughts on this matter may be found here. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Where have I been, where am I going, and where am [...]

Comment on Banned by Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:45:12 +0000

Anyways, maybe the candidate for ordination at Christ Church Plano, Susan Freeman, can do the same thing for ACNA as V. Gene Robinson did for TEc.

Comment on Banned by Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:22:11 +0000

“I have yet to see similar punishment meted out to the woman who styles herself FenelonSpoke and who declared the term “priestess” insulting (and parenthetically, I’m sure Fenelon is turning over in his grave). Arguments on this Certain Blog only go one way, it seems.”

You’re right. I went and took another look at what Matt Kennedy+ wrote. He wrote:

“However, in addition to the standard SF policies:

1. There will be no use of the word “priestess”. Correct or incorrect, many find it insulting.
2. #1 is not debatable.”

No use of the word “priestess” means no use of the word “priestess”, right? So then what do we see in the very first comment by FenelonSpoke?

“I think I will stay away from this thread except to say that I do appreciate that people be mandated not to use “priestess”. Yes, it is insulting and I have never known any ordained Episcopal or Lutheran clergywoman who uses it. Just FTR, using “pastorette” is insulting too. There are a number of people now banned, I believe, from SFIF who use both those terms, and they have found a website elsewhere.”

Well, there you have it. How is it that FenelonSpoke gets to use the word “priestess” in the very first comment, but then doesn’t have her comment summarily deleted along with a stern warning?

And so our brave anti-hero, IRNS, seeing the established precedent set forth already by FenelonSpoke with her use of the word “priestess”, and doing so without being punished, then proceeds to make a reasoned case that “priestess” is an unexceptional and ordinary term in the English language.

Blam! He’s banned.

And so, I’m not arguing that there weren’t any rules that Matt Kennedy and SFIF posted for the conduct on the said thread, but I am arguing that the enforcement upon those violating the rules were applied unjustly. If carte blanche was extended to FenelonSpoke, a precedent, then why didn’t IRNS get the same carte blanche treatment too?

It’s absurd. If IRNS is banned, then why shouldn’t FenelonSpoke be banned too?

This is just wrong.

Comment on Banned by Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:00:43 +0000

But don’t the GLBT revisionists apply the same rhetorical technique as FenelonSpoke by also getting upset at terms which they consider “insulting”?

This is how WO leads to GO. Pro-GO’ers see the same overturning of Scripture used by the pro-WO’ers to advance their cause, and thus they do the same. Pro-GO’ers see the same squashing of language and terms used by the pro-WO’ers to advance their cause, and thus they do the same.

Sad, really when you think about how the pro-WO’ers have decimated the mainline Prot denominations with their agenda.