As far as the Bishop taking such a hard stance against abortion with one of his parishioners; when are you clergymen going to stand up for what is honorable, right, and in accordance with scriptures and teach your parishioners that abortion is murder and support of murder, in any form, will not be tolerated by any church?

As far as inviting Kennedy to join our Episcopal Church; absolutely if he’s willing to repent for his sins, otherwise, we’ve got enough unrepentant sinners in the Episcopal church already.

Also, I hope you do take on the issue of abortion from a pro-choice faith perspective. That seem like a blog worthy opportunity…Again it seems that the universal church does not universally support the greater protection of life, for if they did they would support comprehensive health care coverage, adequate housing for all people, adequate social welfare programs, open and healthy access to abortion in the tragic cases when it is seen best by the individual, all of which have proven throughout developed nations to preserve life to the greatest degree.

Thank you my friend for being a voice among the community of the faithful.

Patrick’s health struggles are well known, and given the fact that he recently lost his father, I suspect this is a very dark time in his life. The bishop has made his point..now he needs to stop, and show Patrick that he and the church love him and care.

I’ve tried to parse what the bishop has said. I just re-read many of his published comments. It’s possible he’s staying on the correct side of the discretionary line that governs pastoral relationships, even outside the bounds of private conversation. But the fact that it’s not easy to tell is itself troubling.

An example, if I may: Suppose you began a local campaign in Lincoln that gambling is great, and you suggested that this was in accord with your faith. If a reporter called me, as your priest, to see what I thought, I should NOT suggest that your church membership is in jeopardy based on your campaign. But that’s not really what you were asking, of course.

I should also not comment specifically on your situation or your life, period, publicly. I should not say, “Ethan is misguided because he’s been under stress” or something similar. That would be inappropriate even if we’d never had a private conversation.

However, I might say that, as an Episcopal priest, I object to gambling, and here’s why…

There is no black & white line here, I’m afraid. It seems to me that Tobin is being too personal with Kennedy in this matter. But I could be wrong. I am often wrong. I’d be interested to know what others think. Your comment will result in much mulling on my end.

Peace,
Scott

I’m not terribly up on the story, but I wasn’t aware that the bishop actually aired any private pastoral counsel with Rep. Kennedy. If he did, he’s clearly in the wrong.

Still, if he didn’t breach confidence, is the bishop inherently out of line in denouncing his political stances? A lot of John Chrysostom would have been out of bounds by that law. (One can pretend he wasn’t talking about anyone specific, but he wasn’t really fooling anyone.) I’m willing to bet we both consider him a hero for opposing the excesses of the ruling class in his sermons, even to the point of attacking the actions of specific Christians under his authority.

Sure, the kind of economic issues Chrysostom was yelling about are All Over the gospels where abortion is much harder to find per se. Granted, it’s incredibly dangerous and rather gutsy for a priest or bishop to denounce a specific person in public. Still, do the canons (or less official ethics) of the priesthood and episcopate actually prohibit this kind of behavior, or is this more of a Hotly Debated Issue?