Sunday, June 12, 2011

Katharine Jefferts Schori ‘embellishes’ her CV to become the first female primate of the Anglican Communion

There’s been a bit of an ‘edit war’ on the Wikipedia page dedicated to The Most Reverend Dr Katharine Jefferts-Schori the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States.

Apparently at her behest, a paragraph was removed by an employee of the Episcopal Church Center (sic) which contained false information presented in the official documentation for her election as Presiding Bishop.

She had stated on her CV that she had held two significant positions of ecclesial and pastoral authority, which would have gone a very long way to establishing that she had what it would take to be a bishop. One of these was: ‘Pastoral Associate and Dean, Good Samaritan School of Theology, Corvallis, OR.’.

It transpires, however, that she was actually simply in charge of her parish's adult education program (and not a very large parish, at that). The fact the she lists the same institution as three of her major qualifications for office is worthy of a little scrutiny, not least because the Good Samaritan School of Theology is shrouded in a little mystery (to say the least): it is not apparently accredited by any academic institution, and there’s some question over whether it exists at all.

Asked in writing to explain her reference to this seemingly phantom school of theology, Bishop Katharine responded: "The Good Samaritan School of Theology was the then-rector's term for all adult education programs, both internally and externally focused.”

The then-rector’s term? So it existed only in the mind of the then-rector?

She further clarified that she ‘spent a year as Dean of the School of Theology and Ministry for the Diocese of Oregon (1990-1991)’.

But according to her CV, she was not ordained until 1994. How can a lay person exercise such spiritual authority in an Anglican theological college? Unless, of course, it wasn't quite an Anglican theological college.

Asked to explain 'El Buen Samaritano', and her priestly duties there, the Bishop explained: "El Buen Samaritano was the Spanish-language congregation based at Good Samaritan, essentially a parochial mission. I acted as vicar with primary liturgical and pastoral responsibility."

‘I acted as vicar...’? So you were an unofficial chaplain at a foreign language school?

This is more than a little suspect. Not even (ordained) university chaplains who ‘act as a vicar’ would imply that they are deans of a theological seminary. This place of prestigious theological inquiry of which Bishop Katharine was Dean perhaps offers nothing but distance-learning and advanced degrees based on nothing but life experience.

'Dean’ denotes senior academic status with authority over an accredited faculty. It would appear that Bishop Katharine was a dean only in her own mind, or was it the then-rector’s mind? Whatever, doubts clearly remain.

The Episcopal Church nominating committee spent a sum of $200,000 on the vetting process, which is rather a hefty sum for a manifestly woefully inadequate vetting.

Attempts to redact the Wikipedia entries relating to this were noted here and here, (with some comment on the Discussion page).

The edit was made by a user called ‘Matisse412’ and includes this statement: "I work in the Communication Office at the Episcopal Church Center. Edits made per Bishop Jefferts Schori's suggestion." This may, of course, be false, but it has not been denied by Episcopal Church staff or Dr Schori (or is it Dr Jefferts Schori?).

A little carelessness or premeditated corruption? A white lie, or a slip of the pen? A spot of tidying up or deliberate concealment? A slight inflation of the job-title after the fashion of calling your secretary an ‘administrative director’, or just mind-numbingly irrelevant trivia? Full-blown election fraud or the consequences of ‘unmitigated evil’?

Perhaps we should not be surprised that a revisionist revises her own history (or, rather, gets a minion to do it). But there’s an awful lot more than mere matters of hat-wearing or CV-embellishing which may lead her to the lake of fire.

It is certainly observed that Bishop Katharine's rise has been meteoric in ecclesial terms: she has never been a rector, and was an assistant rector for just one year. How many diocesan bishops are appointed with such little pastoral experience of practical ministry? How many have ever risen to become Presiding Bishop?

It is not a criminal offence but, to employers in the real world, CV ‘embellishment’ is fraud. And where an employee obtains employment and pecuniary advantage through deception, it is certainly a criminal offence which has attracted a custodial sentence. It is one thing to try to put your best foot forward and word your resume as optimally as you can to better your chances in the career field. It's quite another to misrepresent yourself by intentionally misleading others to believe something about you that simply isn't true or is otherwise an exaggeration of the truth.

If Bishop Katharine had claimed to have founded the local art appreciation society, captained the netball team or suggested that she was paid $5,000 more than it actually was, it would amount to fraud, but not much harm done. The fact that she claimed to be Dean of a college which doesn’t actually exist, and that this may have induced the Episcopal Church to appoint her Presiding Bishop, is pecuniary advantage through misrepresentation and deception (except, of course, in the mind of the then-rector). The statements in the official documentation must have been material to the decision and relied upon by those who voted for her.

Statistics suggest that five per cent of workers admit to ‘embellishing’ their CVs, while 57 per cent of employers say they have caught a lie on a candidate’s application. Of those employers who caught a lie, 93 per cent did not hire the candidate.

In law, if Bishop Katharine’s claims on her CV induced TEC into a contract of employment, the fact that these claims are ‘embellished’ may be considered a breach of contract (in this instance, a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence). Before dismissal could take place, the breach would need to be considered fundamental to the contract. And that, of course, is where matters will be ‘fudged’ for a few years (no doubt long enough for her to serve her full term of office).

But before any of His Grace’s readers and communicants kick off the comments by accusing him of joining some ‘hate’ campaign against the Presiding Bishop because she is i) American; ii) a woman; iii) left-wing; iv) prays to ‘Our Mother Jesus’; v) ordains (practising) lesbian and gay vicars and bishops; or vi) is a radical feminist, His Grace would just like to make it known that he would do the same (and has done) to those with whom he is far more theologically sympathetic.

Some Anglicans do indeed walk a separate path, perhaps as only the generous breadth of Anglicanism permits. But one might expect that path to be walked in a spirit of conviction with regard at least to the truth about oneself.


Anonymous bluedog said...

The woman's not such much an imposter as a rank amateur.

Why, if she was any good, +Katharine would pass herself off as an Archbishop. Oh, hang on...

12 June 2011 at 10:51  
Blogger B.N.A.Freedom said...

How can she be a Bishop, when one of the qualifications for the office is to be: "the HUSBAND of one wife..." among other things?

12 June 2011 at 10:59  
Anonymous John Knox said...

Playing church.

12 June 2011 at 11:20  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Naughty, naughty woman.

" ... she is i) American; ii) a woman; iii) left-wing; iv) prays to ‘Our Mother Jesus’; v) ordains (practising) lesbian and gay vicars and bishops; or vi) is a radical feminist ...

"Some Anglicans do indeed walk a separate path, perhaps as only the generous breadth of Anglicanism permits."

Don't they just! Plenty of rainbows around in her office then.
But hey, as "someone" wrote recently :

“The primary Christian value is to love. Taking 'a stand' or doing 'duty' pale into insignificance.”

So tell her she's been a bad, bad girl and carry on regardless.

12 June 2011 at 11:22  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

I couldn't care less - but what about that hat - make Beatrice's music stand headgear look quite ... well not so stupid.

12 June 2011 at 11:26  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

$200,000 on the vetting process!
Somewhat less expensive and more effective in earlier times:

"And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

Never really understood the competitive process for church positions. Preparing CV's, presentations and getting one's interviewing skills honed.

Then there's the selection panel making the decision. Do they have to undertake 'diversity training' and/or 'equal opportunity training' to make sure their decisions are non-discriminatory?

No wonder some very odd decisions are made!

12 June 2011 at 12:00  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

There must be some red faces among those who have feted the woman, not least the Archbishop of Wales and the Dean of Southwark:

No doubt WATCH and their followers who put feminism above faith will regard Your Grace's expose as a witch hunt:

12 June 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Has she any connections to the EU too? :)

12 June 2011 at 12:57  
Anonymous +Dewi Menevia said...

Abp Cranmer said: It is certainly observed that Bishop Katharine's rise has been meteoric in ecclesial terms: she has never been a rector, and was an assistant rector for just one year. How many diocesan bishops are appointed with such little pastoral experience of practical ministry? How many have ever risen to become Presiding Bishop?

Isn't it the case though that the current holder of Your Grace's See at Canterbury has only very limited parochial experience, and was never in fact even "Assistant Rector"? One assistant curacy for a few years, whilst he also held an university lectureship at Cambridge. That's it. No more than that.

So please, Your Grace, be all means criticise the High Priestess of American Anglicanism for her myriad faults and errors, but realise that the First Among Equals of the worldwide Communion has *even less* pastoral experience.

Being Welsh though excuses these gaps in ++Rowan's c.v. What mitigating factors can she cite?

12 June 2011 at 13:01  
Anonymous James said...

Many thanks to you, Your Grace, for covering this sad and gnarly issue. And many more thanks for the very lucid and incisive coverage you've provided it.

Very few Anglicans have been aware of it. As Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori is a Primate of the Communion, this effects our whole polity as a Communion.

It's important that we learn to speak of this comfortably and rationally, in its implications for our life and work together as a Communion.

12 June 2011 at 13:04  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Your Grace, she is a standing joke. Have you seen how many parishioners there are in Nevada ? Below 6000.

There is a "Bishop" for a congregation of 6000. This former Oceanographer can embellish her resume as much as she likes, she leads a joke church which is about as Christian as a Las Vegas Wedding Chapel

12 June 2011 at 13:14  
Anonymous Old Blue Eyes said...

She should come over here and take up politics. She'd be a shoe in for next leader of the Lib Dems.

12 June 2011 at 13:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Insightful, your Grace, as ever.

It goes to prove once again how the liberal elite will engineer the positioning of their favoured candidates with little regard for theological ability or pastoral experience. As long as they are the right gender, ethnic group or demographic etc, they will be appointed.

As for comparisons with + Rowan, at least + Kath has her eye-brows and facial hair under control and as God's liturgical audio-visual, is it too much to ask that clergy be well groomed? And being Welsh is no excuse!

12 June 2011 at 13:42  
Blogger len said...

If telling a few porkies in the past (if that is indeed what she did)disqualifies one from being a 'good' Christian I guess that rules us all out then?
Just to put this into perspective, King David committed adultery and murder,Apostle Paul watched as Stephen was murdered, Abraham lied as to the identity of his wife Sarah,etc.
That`s not even got started on the Popes and their history of incest, murder, and distorting God`s truth for their own ends.But we won`t mention that will we?
Before the whole entourage accuse me of condoning lying or misrepresenting the truth that is plainly what I am not saying.
I anyone one considers themselves perfect please let me know because I would be very please to meet them.
The Gospel was spread through the World by men (who to my knowledge) held no diplomas from theological colleges, Jesus chose mostly uneducated men who had minds uncluttered with theological dogmas and traditions of men.

12 June 2011 at 14:05  
Anonymous Voyager said...

King David committed adultery and murder

King David wasn't a "Christian"

12 June 2011 at 14:27  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

This is all well and good, but it's also largely irrelevant because:

1. KJS already controls all the levers of power that might be used against her.

2. Most revisionists don't much care about her theological background, because theology isn't all that important in Liberal Christianity.

3. She has effectively castrated the central organs of the Anglican Communion, and turned the resulting eunuchs into her own personal attendants. Revisionists in the US delight in that fact.

4. She has effectively annihilated the orthodox component of TEC and kept the capital assets in the hands of TEC while doing so.

Of course, she has spent TEC into oblivion in the process, and destroyed its long-term viability. But the revisionists currently running TEC are blind to that reality, and will in any case be long since retired before any bills come due. On the other hand, if I were a young liberal TEC priest, I would be actively seeking other job skills. The liberal priest now aged 25 is going to have a severe employment crisis at age 45.

If you ask a typical revisionist voter about the election of KJS, you will be told that she is a product of the moving of the Spirit complete with feminine pronouns. Ironically enough, this is true. TEC has been delivered into her tender hands and for good reason. She may not be so good at saying "Take this cup" but she is an expert at saying "Leave the gun. Take the Cannoli."


12 June 2011 at 14:29  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len said ...

"The Gospel was spread through the World by men (who to my knowledge) held no diplomas from theological colleges, Jesus chose mostly uneducated men who had minds uncluttered with theological dogmas and traditions of men."

Isn't that the point - God chose them not a politically correct interviewing panel with a 'person spec' that contained God only knows what?

The men you cite above were all chosen by God, somewhat reluctantly if I recall. No 'embellished' CV's or polished interviews.

Bearing false witness against yourself doesn't mean you're a poor christian. However, securing an appointment to a senior church position, thereby denying the position to other possibly more qualified candidates, then covering the falsehood, is more than a little 'white lie'.

12 June 2011 at 14:31  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

The American Church elects its Bishops in a democratic process and through an electoral college of Clergy and People. I'm pretty sure all of her "qualifications" would have been discussed in college prior to the election and there were certainly a number of candidates.

She's also been the Presiding Bishop for several years now, so I wonder why it is now surfacing? Could the other remegade - the leader of the "Province of the Southern Cone" be behind it?

12 June 2011 at 14:46  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Is Ms Jefferts living in sin? According to Catholic orthodoxy she is veritably so. Somehow she took against her Roman Catholic cradle upbringing and, with her father, turned her back on catholic thought and practice. Not only is she cocking a snook at the Pope, she is viscerally trampling on orthodoxy in the TEC.

Today is Pentecost. The Apostles got a good dose of wind and fire to get them going. She seems to have taken her cue from somewhere else. I don't understand why she is so anti-catholic and pro-secularising the Faith.

Was she abused as a child?

12 June 2011 at 14:55  
Blogger Dr.D said...

She has been an absolute wrecker for the American Church. She has insisted on filing countless law suits against departing parishes and diocese, to the near bankrupting of the national church and the immense ill will of all. She is a catastrophe.

12 June 2011 at 15:23  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Democracy at work in the Church, eh?
Can the Church 'de-frock' her, so to speak?

12 June 2011 at 15:33  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Milk Monitor of Class Three, Bog Street Juniors, metamorphoses as Head Girl of Roedean ...strike that: as Headmistress of Roedean ...strike that: as Headmistress AND 'love child' of Germaine Greer and Michael Gove!

Len, your very valid point is taken, but I think you're making the wrong point here. This person (I choose not to say 'woman') is either a crook, a fantasist, or both.

Schori kicks Jeffrey Archer into touch, and then some! She positively shames him in comparison. She'd be excessive as one of his literary constructs even!

12 June 2011 at 15:47  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The American Church elects its Bishops in a democratic process

but not its Supreme Court Justices....what does that say about "The True Religion" not having churches but courtrooms

12 June 2011 at 15:53  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

From Wiki:

"Jefferts Schori was elected to serve a nine year term as Presiding Bishop by the House of Bishops, on June 18, from among seven nominees on the fifth ballot with 95 of the 188 votes cast.
The House of Deputies, consisting of deacons, priests and laity, overwhelmingly approved the House of Bishops' election later that day."

Not an overwhelming majority or ringing endorsement - and the fifth ballot too!

Do they use AV or PR in the House of Bishops?

12 June 2011 at 16:00  
Blogger prziloczek said...

I cannot understand how high anglicans can remain in communion with a church which consecrates a woman as primate. It is no good talking about breadth of vision etc etc. The Catholic position is this: ordaining a woman is impossible. It is not about being discriminatory. It is not about being exist. It is not about being clever or modern. It is impossible.
Why? Because it is in no way part of the traditio.

If a church elects a woman as chairman, then so be it. The Methodists have been doing that for ages.

12 June 2011 at 17:34  
Anonymous non mouse said...

It's sad about the Episcopal Church, eating itself away from the inside. Of course, the structure shares the marxist-feminist blight that prevails in academia: which also runs the reputation destruction machine.

So Gray Monk's question is germane: why now? I'd apply a little french here and suggest that they cherchez la gender-bent femme. No one is more deadly to dissenting women than a marxist-feminist. I bet she's upset one or more of them.

12 June 2011 at 17:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Being Welsh though excuses these gaps in ++Rowan's c.v."

No - it explains it, it doesn't excuse it.

12 June 2011 at 18:40  
Anonymous Oswin said...

non mouse : she sports an unreasonably 'shiny' face too; very suspicious!

12 June 2011 at 18:41  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Hadn't thought of that, Oswin!!


12 June 2011 at 19:24  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"Some Anglicans do indeed walk a separate might expect that path to be walked in a spirit of conviction with regard at least to the truth about oneself."

Book of Common Prayer: Whit-Sunday. The Collect. "God, who as at this time didst teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by the sending to them the light of thy Holy Spirit; Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort; through the merits of Christ Jesus our Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the same Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen."

12 June 2011 at 19:35  
Blogger len said...


The Catholic church is renown for a swallowing Camels and straining at gnats!.

12 June 2011 at 20:56  
Blogger len said...

I think, on reflection, if one has been a bit over enthusiastic, and stretched the truth a little, or a lot with ones CV the best and the most honourable policy would be to come clean and own up to it.
Probably better to lose ones job honourably than to keep it with dishonour.
Confession as Mr Dodo reminds me(quite rightly) is good for the soul.

12 June 2011 at 22:08  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len said...
"The Catholic church is renown for a swallowing Camels and straining at gnats!"

Now, now!

Assuming we're talking about the Roman Catholic position, not the Anglican Catholic position, the Church maintains there is a biblical basis for not ordaining woman that is supported by tradition.

In fact the Pope recently declared this whole subject closed because of the strife it was causing. Wise move.

And I do agree with len that the honourable course now is for this woman to resign her position after obtaining it by deception. What are the odds on this happening? She has another 4 years to serve yet.

12 June 2011 at 22:39  
Blogger len said...

Whether she resigns or not is a matter for the lady`s conscience as she will be aware of the full facts of the situation.

The biblical basis for not ordaining woman is presumably found in the following scriptures which clearly forbid women "to teach or to have authority over men" (1 Tim 2:11, 12; cf. 1 Cor 14:34) and restrict the offices of elder and pastor to males (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6).
Which I respect and bow to the authority of scripture.If I have taken a wrong stance on this I stand corrected.

13 June 2011 at 00:29  
Anonymous Perpetua McKillop said...

I agree with len. Women are just too irritating and troublesome altogether, always upsetting the applecart.

I have been reading your enlightening posts for a number of years now len and this could be an opportune moment to meet if you are interested in meeting the perfect person:)

13 June 2011 at 03:04  
Anonymous LV said...

This is not just now coming to light. The information about her inflated CV has been discussed in more conservative Episcopalian circles since the beginning.
As distressing as the CV issue is, however, I (as an Orthodox Christian) find it more telling of her character that she denied her own mother -- a convert to Orthodoxy -- an Orthodox funeral. If I recall correctly, she also conducted the service herself. What kind of person would do such a thing?

13 June 2011 at 03:07  
Anonymous Terry A. Ward said...

Her duplicity was fully documented at the time of her election by my research posted at Virtue Online

It had precisely zero impact on her election.

13 June 2011 at 03:15  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Perpetua said
>>I agree with len. Women are just too irritating and troublesome altogether, always upsetting the applecart.<<
Many a true word (presumably) written in jest but mirrors my wife's view of women in the church. She is convinced women will be the death of the church as we knew it. Declining numbers and the mess in the US suggesst she is right.

13 June 2011 at 08:05  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

A queer bitch in a silly hat,but there are many instances of meteoric rises these days,of talentless political placemen,look what we got haunting downing street at the moment,and the americans seem so desperate that they had to import an unknown kenyan to continue the slaughter of thier american sons.

13 June 2011 at 08:34  
Blogger len said...

Perpetua McKillop,

Pleased and honoured to meet another perfect person.
My wife being the other.(At least that is what she tells me.) :)

13 June 2011 at 08:50  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Why was this being presented here on Whit-Sunday, in view of previous disclosures (as mentioned by Terry A. Ward 3.15am and others)?

Timing (with pics to tell the story):

Saturday, June 11, Royal charm

Friday, June 10, 7:22 PM Catholic school bans rainbows
2:11 PM Sir Peter Bottomley's EDM on the Archbishop of Canterbury
9:27 AM The Duke of Edinburgh at 90: Happy Birthday, Sir

Thursday, June 09, Three cheers for the Archbishop of Canterbury

Wednesday, June 08 6:46 PM , Archbishop of Canterbury guest-edits the New Statesman
11:42 AM Lords Bill to tackle Sharia Courts
9:11 AM A letter from Bishop Godfrey Tawonezvi and the persecuted Church in Zimbabwe

Tuesday, June 07, Richard Dawkins pronounces Year Zero

Monday, June 06, David Cameron confronts Sharia law to assert British values

Sunday, June 05, Colin Coward of Changing Attitude ‘outs’ 13 Anglican bishops

Thursday 2 June, The Ascension-Day. The Collect (Book of Common Prayer). "Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that like as we do believe thy only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ to have ascended into the heavens; so we may also in heart and mind thither ascend, and with him continually dwell, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen."

Another prayer from that Book which has relevance is the one included in the Communion Service (to be said by "the Priest, kneeling down at the Lord's Table.. in the name of all them that shall receive the Communion"): "We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."
(Prayer of Humble Access, said to have been borrowed by historic Abp Cranmer from the Sarum Missal).

[Resident Archbishop or surrogate please consider this submission to be deletable if not acceptable here.]

13 June 2011 at 08:54  
Anonymous James said...

Terry Ward,

It would be interesting to meet you via email. You could leave a comment on my article - from there we can arrange swapping email addresses. Or you can hit me at

13 June 2011 at 11:35  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len said ...
"The biblical basis for not ordaining woman is presumably found in the following scriptures which clearly forbid women "to teach or to have authority over men" (1 Tim 2:11, 12; cf. 1 Cor 14:34) and restrict the offices of elder and pastor to males (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6)."

Quite right!

It's also outlined in Genesis where the respective roles of male and female are ordained by God.

'Revisionists' amd 'modernists' attribute all this to male dominated Jewish customs at the time. Some make the same argument for homosexuality, divorce and even abortion.

Jesus was never slow in challenging social conventions and although women played a very significant roloe in His Ministry, as they have throughout the Old Testament, none were chosen as Apostles.

The Catholic position too is that Priests act on behalf of Christ during the consecration of the bread and wine and this requires a male as Jesus was a man.


13 June 2011 at 13:07  
Blogger CJ said...

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

13 June 2011 at 15:28  
Anonymous Cynthia R Gee said...

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Mat 7:20

13 June 2011 at 15:29  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

CJ and CRG

Yes, and this 'Archbishop' is surely known by the fruits of her ministry.

Personally I believe the 'feminist' rebellion in the church against God's order and the accompanying attack on the validity and place of scripture, is a very great evil.

13 June 2011 at 16:33  
Blogger Martial Artist said...


Your comment that "she leads a joke church which is about as Christian as a Las Vegas Wedding Chapel," can be readily shown to be far, far too generous.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

13 June 2011 at 18:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This was commented on numerous times on Ruth Gledhill's blog in past years, back when it was in front of the pay-wall. I recall that Schori did not lack for ardent defenders among the commenters on at the time, leading one to believe that lying on a CV is generally considered a harmless affectation among TEC and CoE clergy.

13 June 2011 at 18:22  
Anonymous Pageantmaster said...

Time and time again, when scandals have broken in the press, at the root of the hire of an unsuitable person, you find a failure to check their background, obtain proof of claims made, qualifications earned or to take up references.

It may initially seem harsh that CV 'padding' should result in rejection, even prosecution, and I have come across two cases of talented individuals thrown out of jobs or rejected for awards for 'embelishing' their qualifications or agrandising the school they went to. I remember wondering why they would do it, because they certainly had earned the position or deserved the award through their own merits.

But as an army officer said to me, you have to be able to completely rely on those about you to be completely truthful in situations where you are in their hands. That is an extreme situation, when lives may depend on complete truthfulness and the credibility of the person concerned.

The church is a place where lives can depend on truthfulness; in particular the Christian faith is nothing if it is not true. As with the army,lives are at risk, and it is essential that priests and bishops are completely truthful. It is also for a Christian one of the ten commandments that we do not bear false witness. The devil is the 'father of lies'.

Although dismissal or prosecution for such lying about background is indeed drastic, the reason why it is necessary to maintain an organisation's integrity is because it shows dishonesty and a character fault.

The reason why it matters is because past conduct is a good indicator of future behaviour, as is all to evident in the subsequnt conduct of Presiding Bishop Schori.

14 June 2011 at 11:42  
Anonymous Paleo said...

"She may not have taken hostile action toward *orthodox*, but let me tell you how she treated one *Orthodox* Christian. Her mother converted to Orthodox Christianity in the late 70’s. I attended church with her at St. Spiridon Cathedral in Seattle. She was a very well educated woman, PhD in microbiology from Rockefeller. She also detested the idea of ordained women. She had planned in the mid-80’s to become a nun, but was prevented by injuries sustained in a plane accident, which eventually took her life. When she passed away, her daughter, by this time ordained, rather than let her mother have an Orthodox funeral, did it herself. The only Orthodox present, including her Father Confessor, only found out about the funeral from an obituary in a Seattle paper. They got a most icy reception. One of the rather less mentioned commandments is to honor father and mother. If this is how she treated her mother, I think conservative Anglicans can expect no better, probably worse. She treated her mother’s conversion as a hobby, nothing serious. Certainly not serious enough to honor her desires after her death. This does provide a nice thing to say to unhappy Anglicans for the next ten years: If you are unhappy with the Episcopal Church, do what the Presiding Bishop’s mother did; don’t waste your time trying to change it. It won’t happen. Become Orthodox." from

14 June 2011 at 14:48  
Blogger Auriel Ragmon said...

So many comments, so little time to read them all, but she denied her Eastern Orthodox mother an Eastern Orthodox funeral! says something about her.

Rdr. James Morgan
Olympia WA

18 June 2011 at 06:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older