Comments on: Episcopalian Bishop “Welcomes” Catholic Bishop

By: Paul Charles

Paul Charles — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:26:25 +0000

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?

By: Father Mark

Father Mark — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:37:42 +0000

Fact: About 1/3 or more of most Episcopalian parishes in Bishop Marc’s diocese are former Roman Catholics.

By: Dimitri Cavalli

Dimitri Cavalli — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:43:09 +0000

Looks like Bishop Andrus wasn’t there when Archbishop Cordileone was installed, http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2012/10/ordination-snub-san-fran-misunderstanding

By: Maria

Maria — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 03:03:24 +0000

“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.

By: An AngloCatholic

An AngloCatholic — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 01:42:39 +0000

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.

By: Brad Pethoud

Brad Pethoud — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 23:11:31 +0000

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.

By: Adam Baum

Adam Baum — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:31:43 +0000

“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.

By: Mike Melendez

Mike Melendez — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:39:14 +0000

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.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:37:23 +0000

“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.

By: Rick DeLano

Rick DeLano — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:25:47 +0000

Just think, how much pride the previous archbishops of San Francisco can take in the fruits of their ecumenical outreach……