Word has come via the Living Church that the Presiding Bishop has apologized for the timing of the inhibition she placed on retired Bishop Edward MacBurney, and has for the time being lifted the inhibition. It is not in the Presiding Bishop's nature to back down, and likely there are those around her who counseled not to, so this must have been exceedingly difficult for her. She is to be commended for not only reversing her position, but also having the decency to telephone the bishop and talk with him. Moreover, it was good that she let others know (and in a very public way) that she had erred--she didn't have to do that, and that, too, speaks well of her in this situation.
There have been plenty of strong words on this blog condemning her original action, so it is certainly not necessary to revisit here that decision or the sort of mindset that produced it. But perhaps whatever (or whoever) brought her to this change of heart will lead her also not to reinstate the inhibition at all, as it truly does not meet the requirements of the canons, as maybe she has now realized. Perhaps, too, she will have opportunity to revisit on a larger scale how she treats those she views as opponents. To the degree she was relying on the counsel of others, such as her chancellor, in making the original decision and others like it, perhaps she will question whether they are serving her well. They are not.
It's appropriate now, though, to take her action at face value and to give credit where credit's due, and--as always-- to pray for the Presiding Bishop and our church.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Credit where credit's due
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
You are too kind. The woman is malevolent. Evil is too nice a term.
St. John Chrysostom said, "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." There are many examples among us today.
Rick, this is the very first time the Presiding Bishop has retreated in the least on anything, and so something must have led her to act against her usual instincts and (I'm betting here) to buck her advisers. Is it possible that in acting this way toward the bishop that she was forced to look at what sort of person she had become, and could not stand it? After all, despite repeated requests, none of her supporters could really offer any explanations for her actions, which seemed so obviously cruel. Perhaps she had the same difficulty.
Yes, this might be to please someone, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or some of her fellow bishops, who undoubtedly were troubled. Perhaps the odd reference to the son being adopted was designed (poorly, very poorly) to attempt to minimize the very un-parent-like cruelty of what she did. Perhaps this was only a sham. But the bishop said she apologized, and we should at least take him at his word. And if we believe that God can change hearts, perhaps we should pray that he does just that with the Presiding Bishop.
--Editor, Hills of the North
She didn't let others know that she had erred - Bishop MacBurney did that. Perhaps we should take him at his word. Perhaps, too, he is merely being gracious, and she said something more like, "You know what difficulty this has caused me before the public. Have your funeral - there will be time enough to punish you later."
"One swallow does not a springtime make."
I need to see more to be convinced.
Post a Comment