The Episcopal Divinity School has chosen its new dean, the Rev. Katherine Ragsdale. From a Ragsdale sermon:
Finally, the last sign I want to identify relates to my fellow clergy. Too often even those who support us can be heard talking about abortion as a tragedy. Let's be very clear about this:When a woman finds herself pregnant due to violence and chooses an abortion, it is the violence that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion - often a late-term abortion - to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
When a woman wants a child but can't afford one because she hasn't the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.
And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion - there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God's good gift of sexuality without compromising one's education, life's work, or ability to put to use God's gifts and call is simply blessing.
These are the two things I want you, please, to remember - abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
This woman is evil. She is an evil person who preaches evil, and is a conscious agent of the culture of death. She is the enemy. We are, of course, to love our enemies, but that doesn't make her any less the enemy. Could it possibly be more stark? Lord have mercy.
Incidentally, the LGBT caucus among the Episcopalians is over the moon.
Why would any Christian wish to be under the spiritual authority of this person, or submit to the instruction of this enemy of life, this enemy of the Gospel? Seriously, it boggles my mind. She is no Christian, not in any way I recognize. I literally pray that her ministry of death comes to nothing.
God help the poor faithful Episcopalians.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Re: We believe the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in teachings on faith and morals.
Maybe, but no such protection applies to the Pope's political dealings, and Henry's annulment was a pure political issue: no moral issue was at stake since annulment, even then, was a recognized judicial process of the Church and similar annulments had been granted in the past (and would be granted afterward).
Re: So, if a Pope is about to make a bad decision or proclamate a false teaching, the Holy Spirit will intercede.
Then in 1527 then Holy Spirit came dressed as an army of German Protestants whom Charles V let loose to subject Rome to the worst sack it had seen since the Vandals.
Re: the Church was protected.
No, the Church was not protected. Its unity was further shattered. Henry would have kept England Catholic, and while I assume his marital life would have fallen out much the same (Anne beheaded, Jane dead in childbirth...), his heirs, especially Elizabeth, would have been raised Catholic.
Jon,
The Pope took the extraordinary step of dispensing with the law in allowing Henry to marry his brother's widow. When she did not bear him a son and Henry wanted an annulment, he had no grounds for one. To have granted the annulment would have made a mockery of the Pope, dispensations and annulments in one act.
Are we to blame the Pope because a blood-soaked, syphilitic king succumbed to the ravages of his own appetites and pride? The Pope called Henry on his blackmail. The blood remains on Henry's hands, and on those of his aides abettors. Given Henry's deteriorating mental status (secondary to syphilis), there's no telling what marital dispensations he might have sought from Rome, or whether he would have been placed under interdict for the murder of his wives during his headlong quest for a male heir.
We have been blessed here at St. David's for the past 14 years by having Rev. Ragsdale as our Vicar. Katherine will always be remembered here for her respect for human dignity and her love of God.
Out of respect for the truth and in fairness to Reverend Ragsdale, I have to raise two points that may put these matters in context.
1) The speech cited as a "sermon" has all the hallmarks of a political speech. I doubt that many of the posters here agree with Rev. Ms. Ragsdale's politics, or for that matter the politics of many members of ECUSA, but let's remember that while politics always has a moral dimension, a difference, subtle but essential, exists between a political position and the work of the cure of souls.
2) Let's remember, also, the political and social context. The merciless zeal of the crusade against all forms of abortion now encompasses the excommunication of a mother and two doctors for preventing the murder of a nine year old rape victim. Maybe you can still blame the advocates for womens' rights for concluding that they can concede no political or moral ground. However, I suggest that not taking account of that reality does Rev. Ragsdale an injustice.
I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, but here goes.
Gerald Nadal,
The annulment wasn't denied for theological reasons, it was denied under political pressure from the king of Spain. Similar annulments had been granted in the past.
The grounds for the annulment was that the dispensation was invalid because the prohibition on consanguinity in Leviticus was a matter of natural law, and not even the Pope could dispense with it. By assuming that the Pope can dispense with the moral law, you're already assuming that he is qualitatively superior to other bishops, which is what needs to be proven.
On the other hand, I'm not necessarily arguing with the decision not to annul. That was the proximate reason for the Anglican church, but not the ultimate one. The ultimate reason was that, like the Orthodox before them, many people in England came to believe (rightly in my view) that the Pope was a bishop among other bishops, perhaps the greatest of all bishops, but certainly not the unique vicar of Christ on earth.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.