tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post3975183274467632955..comments2024-03-23T18:50:32.902-04:00Comments on Telling Secrets: "It's so unfair!"Elizabeth Kaetonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-46317139940074801262007-03-19T17:21:00.000-04:002007-03-19T17:21:00.000-04:00I am sorry Robert if I was unclear. I came from t...I am sorry Robert if I was unclear. I came from the corporate world. I was with a major corporation for thirty-seven years. If we entrusted people to complete a certain function by a certain time and they failed to do so, their titles were changed to "unemployed". The problem with volunteers is that you really hold no sway over them. They do or they don't as it suits them. They comply or they don't comply. What are you going to do, give them less volunteer work to do? They only way to make sure that the job gets done, is for people with a vested interest to stay on top of it and make sure that it gets done. And that did not happen.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05623709712119761741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-58811256223330294282007-03-19T16:49:00.000-04:002007-03-19T16:49:00.000-04:00Robert, I believe what Bill meant in his short han...Robert, <BR/><BR/>I believe what Bill meant in his short hand way was that it is the responsibility of the Standing Committee - ANY Standing Committee - to make sure that the consents sent it for certification meet the requirements according to canon.<BR/><BR/>That wasn't done. There are, perhaps, a few reasons for that, none the least of which was no small degree of "wishful thinking."<BR/><BR/>I'm sure another reason was due to the "last minute" 11th hour nature of the activism from conservatives outside of the diocese who were earnestly trying to help. <BR/><BR/>Again, it's hurtful to hear but "lack of planning on the part of one person is not reason for an emergency on the part of others."<BR/><BR/>I remain convinced that the SC knew, before they licked the envelope on the final package addressed to "815 Second Ave., NY, NY", that the election would be declared "null and void" because the consents were not in proper order or form or completed. <BR/><BR/>There was no way they could't.<BR/><BR/>Classism and elitism is the "original sin" of TEC, but that is no excuse for sending in a statement from a Standing Committee without a majority of the required signatures. <BR/><BR/>If you know places like Alaska have difficulting getting eight people in the same place at the same time, then you start "working the phones" on Day one of Day 120 of the consent process.<BR/><BR/>It's really that simple - and that difficult. Just grunt work is all. <BR/><BR/>And no, Robert, you didn't say anything about being unfair, but "reports to the contrary" I didn't say anything about "SC seceding from the union" either.<BR/><BR/>I simply spoke about the anxiety level that was raised exponentially by Lawrence's refusal to give a definitive "yes" or a "no."<BR/><BR/>The "orthodox" can not condemn "classic Anglican fudge" on the one hand and then try to employ it with the other.<BR/><BR/>Although, Lawrence is certainly making himself clear now, isn't he? <BR/><BR/>Come to think of it, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps it will be even more difficult to get consents next time - "if," as Don Pardeau always says at the end of 'Spanning the World - "there is a next time" for Mark Lawrence. <BR/><BR/>It's a painful thing, Robert. It must be hugely embarrassing. I'm acutely aware of that. And, I'm really, really sorry.Elizabeth Kaetonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-61614406613766070782007-03-19T16:24:00.000-04:002007-03-19T16:24:00.000-04:00Bill, perhaps you do not understand that SC had no...Bill, perhaps you do not understand that SC had no way to sign consents for Standing Committees from other dioceses. All canonical processes were followed in the first round. My statement simply observes that we continue to follow the canons as we move forward.<BR/><BR/>And, by the way, I was not the one whining about unfairness.Robert Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04124549916713098247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-76138945315565594792007-03-19T14:30:00.000-04:002007-03-19T14:30:00.000-04:00Sorry, Bill,My last nerve gets pulled and all my "...Sorry, Bill,<BR/><BR/>My last nerve gets pulled and all my "mother" stuff kicks in when someone (like the "orthodox") who has been treating people (loike women and LGBT people) unfairly says, "Unfair!"<BR/><BR/>Thanks, jimB. You are too kind.Elizabeth Kaetonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-17722414791383529102007-03-19T14:24:00.000-04:002007-03-19T14:24:00.000-04:00Elizabeth, remind me not to get you upset. Let me...Elizabeth, remind me not to get you upset. Let me take a minute to clean up all the body parts scattered around before I get to a response.. . . . . . . . . . .Oh wait, I found an arm in the corner.. . .. . .Ok, all nice and tidy.<BR/><BR/> I think that by now Robert understands that he doesn’t know the first thing about being unfair. Unfair is being shot to death in New York for trying to pull out your wallet and present it to the police. Unfair is being gay and being dragged behind a car until your dead. Unfair is being the duly elected Presiding Bishop, representing the Episcopal Church in the United <BR/>States, and having a group of fellow bishops refusing to even sit at the table with you because you’re a woman. That’s what it means to be unfair. Ah, why even try to explain.<BR/><BR/>Let’s talk about Robert’s statement “we are committed to following canonical process” and see if it holds water. No, as I look underneath I see it’s leaking. If they had followed “canonical process” they would have signed all the “consents”, licked the stamps, and put them in the mail. I am therefore giving Robert an “A<BR/>“ for effort but a “B – minus” for core content.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05623709712119761741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-30057830974772155052007-03-19T13:48:00.000-04:002007-03-19T13:48:00.000-04:00"Unfair? It's truly 'unfair' that, as President of..."Unfair? It's truly 'unfair' that, as President of the Standing Committee, my manner of life is sufficient to be the "ecclesiastical authority in the absence or incapacitation of the bishop," ...... "<BR/><BR/>Oh great, now the primates have to go back and amend the communique to prohibit another whole level of office. Then if they figure out some of our layity is gay, it will never end. Oh wait, that is the plan isn't it?<BR/><BR/>;;sigh;;<BR/><BR/>In my prayerful judgement, you are one of the most direct victims of B033 along with my dear friend Michale Hopkins. You two should be fighting it out to see which is consecrated first, not fighting a totally phony "fast." <BR/><BR/>Any yet, it is Fr. Lawrence who is bitter. It is his supporters who are raising the spector of being Anglican not Episcopalian, whatever that means. It is you, and others like you who are demonstrating grace and gracefulness. <BR/><BR/>"By their fruits...." I am reminded of the priest who approaches his rector after the 11 A. M. mass and says that there were errors. "What you said is not what Jesus said Father." To which the old man responded, "He would have said it if he had all the facts!"<BR/><BR/>FWIW<BR/>jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-19520911544308868782007-03-19T12:44:00.000-04:002007-03-19T12:44:00.000-04:00Thank you, Robert. It is probably most appropriat...Thank you, Robert. It is probably most appropriate for you to consider my comments about Mark Lawrence "unfair."<BR/><BR/>Obviously, I do not. <BR/><BR/>Unfair? Try looking at how Bishop Gene Robinson was - and continues to be - characterized. <BR/><BR/>As I recall, we lost two entire days in the consent process at General Convention because a link on his website to a group of young LGBT people he had previously helped contained a link to a pornographic website.<BR/><BR/>We also had to deal with the accusations from a man in the Diocese of NH who claimed that Gene was "inappropriate" with him.<BR/><BR/>The truth, when it finally came out, was that the pornographic site had linked itself with the youth site - not vise versa - and the "inappropriate" behavior turned out to be that +Gene had placed his hand on the man's shoulder after he had expressed something troubling and it had made him feel "uncomfortable."<BR/><BR/>But, until those two truths came out, Bishop Gene was labeled in the national and international press as a sexually predatory gay man.<BR/><BR/>Unfair? You betcha.<BR/><BR/>Has Mark Lawrence endured anything close to that "unfairness"?<BR/><BR/>Not from where I sit, but I'm more than willing to be enlightened.<BR/><BR/>Unfair? This President of the Standing Committee of Newark, at her very first meeting, insisted on a second reconsideration of our vote not to consent at the request of the President of the Standing Committee of South Carolina.<BR/><BR/>Unfair? This President of the Standing Commmittee of Newark expressed her opinions publicly that Mark's "intentions" were the stuff of what paved the road to hell and begged for a difinitive "yes" or "no." <BR/><BR/>Mark Lawrence never gave me - or others - the courtesy of a response, much less responded directly to the request.<BR/><BR/>Unfair? Mark Lawrence only has himself to blame. <BR/><BR/>I'm sorry for your pain, Robert. Truly. I would never wish on anyone the kind of 'unfair' treatment LGBT people in general and I in particular have had to endure in this church. <BR/><BR/>Unfair? It's truly 'unfair' that, as President of the Standing Committee, my manner of life is sufficient to be the "ecclesiastical authority in the absence or incapacitation of the bishop," but I am prohibited from being an actual bishop, much less discerning my vocation as one.<BR/><BR/>Unfair? I suspect you may not see it that way. That doesn't mean that it isn't.<BR/><BR/>But, there's no sense whining about it or pointing fingers. <BR/><BR/>There's way too much gospel work to be done. I welcome y'all to it.Elizabeth Kaetonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-9449109129104770912007-03-19T12:09:00.000-04:002007-03-19T12:09:00.000-04:00While some have implied that the ruling by PB Jeff...While some have implied that the ruling by PB Jefferts Schori was "unfair," most of the sense of unfairness has been directed toward those who misrepresented Mark Lawrence's written and stated positions-including the President of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Newark. As a priest in the Diocese of South Carolina, I can confidently state that we are committed to following canonical process, and will proceed appropriately. Despite our differences with the current positions of TEC leadership, and reports to the contrary, we have never sought to "secede from the union."Robert Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04124549916713098247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-41774530744042565602007-03-19T08:30:00.000-04:002007-03-19T08:30:00.000-04:00Sometimes when you screw up, you just have to stan...Sometimes when you screw up, you just have to stand up and say, "I screwed up" and then get on with your life. Then just maybe, because you've stopped blaming the world for your mistakes, you can get it right.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05623709712119761741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-28247927583341727642007-03-18T20:44:00.000-04:002007-03-18T20:44:00.000-04:00Well done, Elizabeth!Well done, Elizabeth!Mike in Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12324396563818549026noreply@blogger.com