Laff-filled essay from D.C. Paper of Record. Lambastes Good Archbishop Akinola for not being sufficiently sensitive and caring. Implies he's the sock puppet of Rich Americano Cabal- Scaife, Coors, Bradley, others. Calls for acceptance of diversity. Therefore calls for unity coming from square peg pounded into round hole. So this is the kind of Church you want within Catholicism GoGo60s Dissenters and Company. That those for whom profession of faith could lead to untimely demise are inherently wrong. To which we argue because their faith has a price there might be something to their argument. And snif snif do I sense a whiff of racism in this alleged bishop's hysterics? Not a full blast but just enough to see entire essay in negative light. Good luck bishop. No doubt your churches will make good condos or museums. Or churches presided over by African-Americans who hold to stronger tougher teachings particularly on homosex. Or even mosques.
Pack this "Bishop" off to Nigeria, and let him walk in Akinola's shoes. You see, Mr. White Rich Bishop, they have things called "poverty" and "foaming bronze age fanatics who worship Allah" to worry about.
I'm sure your biggest worry is if they made your Latte a double or not.
Of the eleven hundred or so non-Catholic clergy assisted by The Coming Home Network, about one-third are Episcopalian or Anglican clergy in North America. No wonder.
BTW, I was surprised to see that, according to TCHN's stats, Baptist clergy account for the second largest group of convert clergy or those on the way home.
"Of the eleven hundred or so non-Catholic clergy assisted by The Coming Home Network, about one-third are Episcopalian or Anglican clergy in North America. No wonder.
BTW, I was surprised to see that, according to TCHN's stats, Baptist clergy account for the second largest group of convert clergy or those on the way home."
Heh. My husband grew up Episcopalian. I grew up Southern Baptist. We both, along with our two kids, entered the Church last year.
I've seen Akinola's alleged "support" for this law lambasted all over the 'net, but I have yet to see one verifiable direct public quote from him in support of it.
This WP piece continues the trend - the write simply asserts that Akinola supports the law and provides no backup whatever for the claim.
This letter in the Post is more than just a disagreement between bishops. As one who keeps up with ECUSA politics, to me this seems to be a preemptive strike against Akinola by Chane, in anticipation of ECUSA's General Convention this summer.
The global Anglican Communion has requested that ECUSA and the Canadian church step back from their recent innovations of same-sex blessing rites (Canada) and consecration of practicing homosexuals as bishops (ECUSA).
Many orthodox Episcopalians in this country look to Akinola and other "global south" bishops for support, with Akinola definitely being the most visible and publically articulate.
If Chane can start with the ad hominen attacks now, by the time June rolls around, and the ECUSA general convention, he will have many delegates turned again Akinola and against accepting any requests by the Anglican Communion. Just another reason why "theology by democracy" is a bad idea.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, and Chane's point is a fair one. Nigeria did not simply outlaw same-sex marriage but enacted a whole series of restrictions which blatantly restricted the free speech rights of homosexuals in Nigeria, with the active participation and support of Archbishop Akinola - not to mention new harsh criminal penalties for sodomy. IIRC, the state even forbade homosexuals from leading religious services, which, if true, is surely beyond the State's competence. Akinola's position is little different from that of New Oxford Review which maintains that the State has the duty to vigorously enforce sodomy laws and exclude homosexuals from virtually any tangible participation in human society. Catholic teaching makes no such demand. Effectively, in Nigeria, gays are the new Jews. It is completely fair for Chane to ask the leadership of the AAC and the organizations that provide the AAC seed money if they agree with Akinola's position and the reasons for their agreement/disagreement. Chane, unfortunately, harms his case by stating in conclusion, in effect, "you must either agree with Akinola, or if you don't, you're a moral coward." That only helps poison the discussion, and serves no clarifying purpose.
I've never understood why wealthy foundations would pay large sums of money to do to ECUSA what ECUSA is doing to itself for free. But I've never seen a dime of Scaife's money so I guess I'm a little bitter. 
I am sorry but I was under the impression that human beings have rights and there is such a thing as
Civil Rights.
But Gays having rights? Since when?
What about Male heterosexual or female heterosexual rights?
Can we break this down any further?
I thought that we as Catholics say
hate the sin not the sinner.
If Gays have explicit rights other than normal human rights than
everyone else has seperate rights too.. I don't think so.
Patrick Rothwell, if what you're saying is correct, then this is an issue of basic human rights having NOTHING whatsoever to do with gay "marriage" or the glorification of homosexuality.
P. Edward Murray; of course gay people have rights; not "special" rights, but the same basic human rights all should enjoy.
However, in parts of Africa that's often not the case at all.
10 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
