Why the Pope Must Love Him Some Gene Robinson

pope“VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI has created a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church, responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the ordination of women and the election of openly gay bishops.”

Read more about this historic development here.

Bottom line? Millions of Anglicans and Episcopalians would rather embrace the Pope than have one of the 112 American Episcopal bishops be gay.

Five hundred years of profound separation, and that’s what it took to bring Anglicans and Catholics back together again: one gay bishop.

************************************************************************************************************************

Email: johnshore@sbcglobal.net

Follow: http://twitter.com/johnshore

Befriend: http://www.facebook.com/john.shore1

Be Fan: http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Shore/89494795412?ref=s

About John Shore

John Shore (who, fwiw, is straight) is the author of UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question, and three other great books. He is founder of Unfundamentalist Christians (on Facebook here), and executive editor of the Unfundamentalist Christians group blog.  (In total John's two blogs receive some 250,000 views per month.) John is also co-founder of The NALT Christians Project, which was written about by TIME,  The Washington Post, and others. His website is JohnShore.com. You're invited to like John's Facebook page. Don't forget to sign up for his mucho-awesome newsletter.

  • Gerry Kirk

    It's about time! Anglicans need the Catholic Church, and vice versa.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    You're right, Gerry. I gave this post a title perhaps too flippant, but I agree with you: both have a lot to learn from the other.

  • Gina

    I think it's fair to come to the point that John did based on the statement made by the Roman Catholic Church themselves, which states "responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the ordination of women and the election of openly gay bishops." John didn't make the connection, he just reported it.

    As for the reference to Mary, Queen of Scots – I agree, John. It has been hundreds of years, and yet the Pope is opening his arms to the symbolic "prodigal son" of the Anglican Church – whose inception caused wars, death, and enmity for more than a few years. Kudos to them for sure, but it IS a big move and very surprising………any amount of review of history itself will acknowledge that.

  • Ryan Cordle

    This really won't change much of anything. Rome is really just saying "It's OK to become Catholic now"

  • http://www.wittenberghall.com jamey w. bennett

    I enjoyed this commentary, but I do have to take exception to a couple things. First of all, those Anglicans I know who will move into Rome are going to move not because of a gay bishop, but because of women's ordination. Secondly, they will move because many Anglicans are already basically Roman Catholics. The Oxford Movement of the 19th century basically was a recovery of English Catholicism, and the vast majority of American Anglicans, at least, have been heavily influenced by the Oxford Movement. Once the OM theology is digested, it only requires moving a marker here or there around.

    Lastly, I'm not sure about the reference to Mary, Queen of Scots (Stuart). Do you mean Mary I of England (Tudor)? I guess they were both Catholics, but it was Mary (Tudor) I of England who sought to restore Roman Catholicism to England. Mary (Stuart) Queen of Scots didn't get any closer to restoring Catholicism than the chopping block. The Stuart-Tudor lines are complicated…

    I enjoy this blog, btw. Keep up the good work, bro.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    Mr. Bennett: Oh, sure. Come over and just KNOW what you're talking about, why doncha? Bastard!

    You do raise mighty fine points, especially about the OM. "It only requires moving a marker here or there around" is a wonderful way of stating that truth.

    As to the relative effects of gay vs. women's ordination. That same question was raised today over on Boar's Head Tavern (group blog run by Internet Monk, which you probably know but just in case). I'll put in here the way that exchange went, cuz … well, cuz I'm Just That Lazy.

    First someone said: "John S: it’s not one gay bishop, it’s an unknown number of women bishops. At least as regards C of E Anglo-Catholics, for whom homosexuality has (to put it mildly, not to mention circumspectly) never been as much of a hot-button issue as women’s ordination."

    To which I smarmily (sp?) replied: "You take Gene Robinson out of the picture, and this thing wouldn’t have happened. Not today, anyway. You’re right, of course: the ordination of women is a massive stress issue. But it’s the momentum of the world-wide outrage over Robinson that finally pushed open the Vatican doors."

    I then added the bit which I afterward attached as an "update" in the original post above.

    Aaaaaaaaand scene.

    And you, Mr. Bennett, appear to have one serious blog. Which I am now officially looking forward to checking out.

    Oh–and I meant Mary Stuart. I always go with the sheer, unqualified losers.

  • http://adangerousidea.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/ dac

    well, perhaps they might be a little more disillusioned with the Anglican Church than just on that one person….

  • Rich

    Are we sure Dan Brown isn't behind all this? Sounds like great material for his next book.

  • textjunkie

    I am amused that the Pope's message was "No Bishops!!" which, given the plethora of new bishops within the ACNA/etc. crowd, means he won't get any of the real trouble makers. ;)

  • Moonshadow

    Your post just made me wish, even more than before, an African cardinal had been elected to the Chair of Peter. Thank you for that. Peace.

  • http://www.wittenberghall.com jamey w. bennett

    Mr. Shore,
    I prefer to go by The Dude. His Duder works, too.

    The Stuarts? Bah! The Tudors were so much more fun. All the Stuarts really gave us was the KJV & the English Civil War. I'd compliment them on the KJV, except the KJV Only crowd (in their overalls) has figured out how to use YouTube. Stuarts = FAIL. Tudors= WIN. :)
    JWB


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X