In anticipation of Salvatore Cordileone’s installation as Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco on October 4 (the feast day of St. Francis), Marc Andrus, the Episcopalian Bishop of California, issued what could roughly be called a welcome letter. While he and Bishop Cordileone share views on reducing extreme global poverty and treatment of immigrants, the two remain sharply divided on the issue of marriage.
It is a bold move by the Vatican to send Cordileone, an avid pro-life, pro-traditional marriage activist, to the state’s most pro-gay city.
In response, Bishop Andrus insists to the Episcopalian faithful, “as I say in most of my blessings at the conclusion of the Eucharist, that ‘we make no peace with oppression.’ The recognition of the dignity and rights, within civil society and the Church of lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered people, and of women are as core to our proclamation of the Gospel as our solidarity with the poor, with victims of violence and political oppression, and with the Earth.”
He encourages those Catholics who are unhappy with the Church’s stance on marriage to find a home in the Episcopalian church. “Some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileone’s installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church. We should welcome them as our sisters and brothers. Even as we welcome those who may join us and look for ways to work with our Roman Catholic siblings in the faith, we will not be silenced in our proclamation of God’s inclusion.”
Welcome to San Francisco Bishop Cordileone!
October 2nd, 2012 | 2:07 pm
Does Bishop Andrus’ commitment to “inclusion” include welcoming unborn children? They seem to be suffering from pretty significant “oppression” in San Fransisco, under a policy of legalized abortion that the Episcopal Church unequivocally supports.
October 2nd, 2012 | 2:23 pm
“issued what could roughly be called a welcome letter.”
Rough indeed. While superficially polite and civil, it is a declaration of war.
October 2nd, 2012 | 4:26 pm
I honestly wonder how many people, including opponents of Prop 8, ever heard of Bishop Andrus before this.
Again, I always wonder why many of the progressive denominations keep dying and not picking up all these lapsed Catholic refugees we hear and read about.
Maybe Bishop Andrus should consider that if homosexual conduct is sinful and morally wrong, then are religious leaders doing people and society at large any favors by telling them that it’s perfectly okay?
October 2nd, 2012 | 5:12 pm
That wasn’t a declaration of war, that was just crassly using the opportunity of the bishop’s appointment to make a political statement. “I’m so glad you’re here, this gives me an opportunity to assert my and my church’s moral superiority over you and your church” is neither welcoming nor respectful. It’s frankly insulting, though if Bishop Cordileone is wise he will not receive the insult.
October 2nd, 2012 | 6:06 pm
“Some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileone’s installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church.”
Probably the most theologically sound statement put forth by an Episcopal bishop in years.
October 2nd, 2012 | 10:26 pm
From the 1928 Book of Common Prayer: “ALMIGHTY God, who hast created man in thine own image; Grant us grace fearlessly to contend against evil, and to make no peace with oppression; and, that we may reverently use our freedom, help us to employ it in the maintenance of justice among men and nations, to the glory of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”
I bet those upstanding Episcopalians of some 90 years ago had no idea how their words would be turned around by their descendants!
October 3rd, 2012 | 12:13 am
@Pentamom:
I revise my prior remarks to accept your characterization of it as disrespectful. Your evaluation of it’s tone was better than mine.
However, let me point out this phrase:
“we make no peace with oppression.”
Oppression being a male clergy, marriage as it was understood until twenty years ago…
October 3rd, 2012 | 1:02 am
[...] Episcopalian Bishop “Welcomes” Abp. Cordileone to San Francisco – Kat. Infantine, FT [...]
October 3rd, 2012 | 3:40 am
“Some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileone’s installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church. We should welcome them as our sisters and brothers.”
Quite, and welcome to them.
Would that all pro-choice pro-gay marriage, pro-women’s ordination “Catholics” accept Bishop Andrus’s kind invitation.
October 3rd, 2012 | 5:04 am
““ALMIGHTY God, who hast created man in thine own image; Grant us grace fearlessly to contend against evil, and to make no peace with oppression..”
Is it oppressive that no child will ever find gay parents on ancestry.com ? To say such a thing in relationship to condoning homosexual behavior and condemning those who say otherwise, is to find no real peace. No Peace in the Creator Himself.
October 3rd, 2012 | 8:47 am
“Inclusiveness” is one of those wondrously flexible ideas. At base, it means all people except those with whom we disagree, which makes it old wine in new skins.
October 3rd, 2012 | 9:45 am
Does he realize the Bishop’s name is Cordileone – do you really want to mess with him?!?
October 3rd, 2012 | 9:52 am
Bishop Andrus’ Episcopal Diocese of California has lost a quarter of its attendance in the past decade (see link below). Considering that he has received some dissident Catholics (such as Fr. Matthew Fox of the “techno-cosmic mass”) I think these gloomy figures even understate how many of his own flock have simple ceased frequenting Episcopal pews.
http://pr.dfms.org/study/exports/1353-1751_20121003_09444532.pdf
http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=1466
October 3rd, 2012 | 10:25 am
Just think, how much pride the previous archbishops of San Francisco can take in the fruits of their ecumenical outreach……
October 3rd, 2012 | 10:37 am
“Inclusiveness” is one of those wondrously flexible ideas.
Mike Melendez,
I partially agree with you, but I think the concept of inclusiveness includes a component of actively trying to see if more people can be brought in. Wishing that all “dissident” Catholics would just go over to the Anglican Church is the opposite of inclusiveness. Even at its most “conservative,” it seems to me, the Catholic attitude should be that “dissident” Catholics should be converted into “orthodox” Catholics, not told to get lost. (Remember the story of the one lost sheep.)
And of course the Catholic Church would never entice Episcopalians to come over to the Catholic Church, would it? Of course it would! It invites them to convert en masse and makes special accommodations for those who do so.
October 3rd, 2012 | 1:39 pm
David writes: “I think the concept of inclusiveness includes a component of actively trying to see if more people can be brought in.”
That’s always been the meaning of evangelization to me. But inclusiveness, being so flexible, can stretch to include it. To me, the word inclusiveness is meaningless on its face as it says nothing about who should be included. The idea that everybody can be included in a particular category is absurd as people’s ideas are drastically different.
The epitome of the concept (maybe nadir is better) was its use by Mayor Menino here in Boston: “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”
I agree with you that those who do not believe in Catholicism should be evangelized. Such is Christianity. That said, there are groups that call themselves Catholic but clearly are not and have been rebuffed by the USCCB itself. “Catholics” for a Free Choice comes to mind.
There was a time when the phrase “Apple Pie and Motherhood” was common in referring to words without meaning that “feel” good. “Inclusiveness” belongs in that category.
October 3rd, 2012 | 2:31 pm
“Wishing that all “dissident” Catholics would just go over to the Anglican Church is the opposite of inclusiveness. Even at its most “conservative,” it seems to me, the Catholic attitude should be that “dissident” Catholics should be converted into “orthodox” Catholics, not told to get lost.”
The bigger problem is that dissident (quotes unnecessary) Catholics who wish that orthodox (again, quotes unnecessary) Catholics would “get lost”.
No lost sheep should be adandoned, but the ones that harbor delusions of being a sheperd, need to disabused of that notion.
October 4th, 2012 | 7:11 pm
I wouldn’t be so smug about those who have left the Episcopal Church. Roman Catholics have also left the Church in droves. If it weren’t for Roman Catholic immigrants coming into the U.S. many of your pews would be empty too.
October 4th, 2012 | 9:42 pm
The letter is a pastoral letter addressed to the (Episcopal) Diocese of California. It is NOT addressed to Archbishop Cordileone, nor to Roman Catholics. It is NOT a “welcome” letter (or a welcome letter, scare-quotes removed). If RCs are finding it offensive, perhaps they shouldn’t be reading other people’s mail as if it were addressed to them.
October 4th, 2012 | 11:03 pm
“He encourages those Catholics who are unhappy with the Church’s stance on marriage to find a home in the Episcopalian church. “Some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileone’s installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church. We should welcome them as our sisters and brothers.” – I like Catholics to stay Catholic but at the same, they can always leave the church and join the Episcopal Church who are not happy with the church teaching on sanctity of life, family, marriage, contraception and etc.
October 6th, 2012 | 6:43 pm
Looks like Bishop Andrus wasn’t there when Archbishop Cordileone was installed, http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2012/10/ordination-snub-san-fran-misunderstanding
October 7th, 2012 | 8:37 pm
Fact: About 1/3 or more of most Episcopalian parishes in Bishop Marc’s diocese are former Roman Catholics.
October 8th, 2012 | 4:26 pm
Can we cut to the chase? Bishop Andrus isn’t really saying that the Episcopal Church is more inclusive because it accepts peoples of all races, creeds, colors, and conditions. The Catholic Church has been doing that for more than 2,000 years. He’s saying that his church is more “inclusive” because it also accepts and does not see as sinful such acts as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual behavior, and contraception. He, in fact, is intolerant of the Catholic Church for seeing those acts as something for which to seek repentance and atonement. Why doesn’t Bishop Andrus stop this intolerance and put aside what appears to be some sort of tacky membership drive?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact