Unitatis redintegratio applied: Episcopal “Bishop” not seated for installation of Archbp. Cordileone

Rex novus in Aegypto.

The other day Archbishop Cordileone was “installed” (a fitting word given the shape of the Cathedral in San Francisco).  You may recall that just days before the installation the Episcopalian (Episcopal) “Bishop” of California, Marc Andrus, wrote a hit piece, distorting Catholic doctrine concerning pastoral care of homosexual persons.  I wrote about Andrus HERE.  Among the ways Andrus bashed the Catholic Church and denigrated Archbp. Cordileone, there was also this:

Claiming that the appointment of Archbishop Cordileone was met with mixed reactions by San Franciscans of “all or no faith tradition,” Bishop Andrus invited Catholics “less at home” with their new bishop to “come to The Episcopal Church.

At the end of my post about “Bishop” Andrus I wrote this:

I hope Archbp. Cordileone declines the first opportunity to share a worship space with this guy.

Stop the presses!

First, the website of the Episcopal Diocese of California issued a statement. (There isn’t a time stamp on the original post HERE, but the update shows that the Piskies fired the first shot).  In that first statement, the Episcopalians explain that Andrus was not allowed to participate at the installation of Archbishop Cordileone.

In an article from local SF press we read that the archdiocesan spokesman says that this was all a misunderstanding.  Andrus was late and they were trying to figure out how to get him worked in.  However, I have not seen anything on the website of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.  Another straight news story about the event is HERE, adding that the spokesman spoke with AP.

But wait! There’s more.

Then Andrus, on his blog, subsequently disputes the archdiocesan spokesman’s claim, saying that he was in fact on time, etc. etc.  “Bishop” Andrus described on his blog what happened.  My emphases.

My experience at the installation of Archbishop Cordileone

A post to clarify my experience at the installation of Archbishop Cordileone at St. Mary’s Cathedral, San Francisco.

I was dropped off at the cathedral at 1:30PM by my assistant. After making my way around protestors and showing my invitation to security guards, I was in the lower level area to which I was directed by 1:40.

The instructions the Archdiocese had given my assistant were that I should be at St. Mary’s by 1:45. The service was scheduled to begin at 2.

I identified myself to an assistant to the archbishop, who spoke to someone through a headset, saying, “Bishop Andrus is here.”

I saw the Greek Metropolitan, a good colleague of mine, who was in the same room with me, several Greek Orthodox priests, archdiocesan employees and security guards. I greeted the metropolitan and we spoke briefly.

An archdiocesan employee attempted to escort me upstairs with the Greek Orthodox group, but was stopped from doing so by the employee to whom I had first identified myself. This person, who appeared to be in a superior role, instructed another employee to stand with me.

At this point no other guests remained in the downstairs area. The employee and I chatted while waiting. I began to wonder about the time holdup. I checked my phone; it was 1:50PM. I asked the employee standing with me if the service indeed started at 2, which she affirmed.

At 2PM, when the service was to begin, I said to the employee, “I think I understand, and feel I should leave.” Her response was, “Thank you for being understanding.” I quietly walked out the door. No one attempted to stop me. No attempt was ever made to explain the delay or any process for seating. I arrived early, before the time given my assistant, and waited to leave until after the service had begun.

My intention for attending the installation was to honor our ecumenical and interfaith relations in the Bay Area.

Regardless of possible misunderstandings or of possible pre-meditated plans, the fact remains that “Bishop” Andrus, who had bashed the Catholic Church just days before, was not seated for the installation of Archbp. Cordileone.

That’s just fine with me.

We need a new approach to ecumenism that does NOT include lying on the ground and letting ourselves be kicked by our partners in dialogue.

UPDATE:

More from the Episcopal Digital Network.  HERE

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick, Liberals, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Picture Me In My Grief, The Drill and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Unitatis redintegratio applied: Episcopal “Bishop” not seated for installation of Archbp. Cordileone

  1. Daniel says:

    Based on the account, it sounds as though he was not allowed to process in to the Sanctuary with the other clergy. Since he walked out the door onto the street, I’d wonder if he was not properly vested to be part of the clergy procession.

  2. Imrahil says:

    If what Headpastor Andrus says is true – and though as a Catholic I should rather stick to my fellow Catholic the archdiocesan spokesman, the Headpastor’s story just sounds too probable – then, well, not lying on the ground and letting ourselves be kicked by our partners is good for one thing.

    What is not good is the spokesman’s explanation. We should give plain speech.

    Moreover, given the fact that there are any seats at all for the ecumenical dialogue-partners (who by position just want the same: that Catholics join their own communities), he should have got his seats.

    He could, on the other hand, be called out in public such as: “I also hope for a better understanding with our ecomenical dialogue-partners. In the latest times, as you know, there have been tensions here with Mr. Andrus, Bishop of the Ep. Church, who has said … ” etc. You know: a preacher has the benefit that he doesn’t meat contradiction.

    If we wish to be polite, we could inform the Headpastor beforehand that if he chooses to appear, he will hear such a sermon. However: why not making sure that there are no health reasons and sudden incapacities? After the manner: if he chooses not to appear, this threat and the reaction will be made public?

    Or go for the easy way and openly uninvite him?

    However, I am against mobbing him out of the place (as, sorry, it must be called) and then publicly going the polite-excuses-way.

  3. Imrahil says:

    mobbing = bullying. False friend. Sorry.

  4. AA Cunningham says:

    Daniel says:
    6 October 2012 at 7:55 am

    Based on the account, it sounds as though he was not allowed to process in to the Sanctuary with the other clergy.

    As a protestant he wouldn’t have been allowed into the sanctuary. The nave yes, the sanctuary, no. Andrus was invited out of courtesy to observe not concelebrate, which he can’t.

  5. If Andrus’ account is to be believed, someone on the Archbishop’s staff could have at least been straight with him and said, however carefully worded, that he was not to be included in the formalities due to recent events, and then be politely escorted out. This as opposed to not saying anything while keeping him in the wings, and waiting for him to figure things out himself.

    It’s not a matter of being obsequious, but of having class. Not to mention showing Andrus what it looks like to have it.

  6. I think the proper time to have told Bishop Andrus that he was no longer welcome at the installation liturgy would be before he showed up. The way this was done makes the SF archdiocese look petty.

  7. AA Cunningham says:

    Andrus was obtuse enough to show up any way after the nonsense he wrote. That’s a lot of chutzpah for a protestant. The guy is, most charitably, as dense as a lead brick.

    Write your mom a letter a week before Thanksgiving telling her she’s a lousy cook and then show up hungry anyway and see how you get treated.

  8. jimsantafe says:

    Not seating “bishop” Andrus in any position of honor seems entirely appropriate. And there is a huge difference in any event between the participation of Orthodox priests and bishops who are validly ordained and Protestant clergy who are not.

    That said, if Andrus’ account is accurate, the Archdiocese did not act in a forthright, dignified, or noble way. Let’s take a stand for the truth AND be exemplary Catholic ladies and gentlemen at all times.

  9. tzard says:

    This is San Francisco folks. I’m more inclined to think the ushers were overly cautious about the “ceremony” than about keeping someone out. He wasn’t wearing a rainbow sash, was he?

    And as a parent of teenagers – I see a tantrum when I see one. What’s this about leaving right at 2:00 – it sounds like he was expecting it – begging for a fight. After all, he was only there for 10 minutes at that point “I feel I should leave” could mean “I think we better get going and leave this room” to which the usher might be thinking “yea, they need to get back here to seat you.” and it comes out with the courtesy “Thank you for your understanding” (in waiting).

    Obviously he had no patience for working joes. He should have waited for later. After all, if it was a snub, him sitting there for the whole ceremony would have been *really* embarrassing. As it is, the staff never got the chance to seat him late. But I guess being sat late doesn’t have the same ring as being excluded.

  10. “That said, if Andrus’ account is accurate, the Archdiocese did not act in a forthright, dignified, or noble way.”

    And in the long run, it doesn’t matter how orthodox your new Archbishop is, if his staff acts like a bunch of catty little girls in junior high who have it out for the new girl. In my experience, chancery work (and for that matter, staff work for a large well-heeled parish) tends to attract this kind of individual, the type with a penchant for palace intrigue.

    Andrus or no Andrus, the Archbishop has got some housecleaning to do when the party dies down.

  11. thefeds says:

    This so called bishop Andrus was a craven idiot to think he would get anything less than he received after the way he PUBLICALLY welcomed Archbishop Cordileone to San Francisco!

  12. jasoncpetty says:

    Andrus: My intention for attending the installation was to honor our ecumenical and interfaith relations in the Bay Area.

    Get a dog.

  13. KevinSymonds says:

    If I be not mistaken, it would appear as though the good “Bishop” has modified his statement:

    http://bishopmarc.typepad.com/blog/2012/10/letter-to-the-diocese-of-california-concerning-the-installation-of-salvatore-cordileone-as-archbisho.html

    It now reads:

    ” 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.”

  14. Daniel says:

    AA Cunningham wrote: “As a protestant he wouldn’t have been allowed into the sanctuary. The nave yes, the sanctuary, no. Andrus was invited out of courtesy to observe not concelebrate, which he can’t.”

    He indicates per his own account that he was stopped on the stairs while trying to walk in with the Greek Orthodox group. While they would not be there to concelebrate either, would they have processed through the Sanctuary to kiss the altar prior to being seated? I am suggesting that perhaps the problem had less to do with being turned away altogether, but simply being stopped from taking a spot in the seating arrangement that would have made him equivalent to the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan. It might be that he was never supposed to have been down in the basement with the one group processing, but led through the nave to his seat.

  15. mrsmontoya says:

    Fr. Z: My daughter TeaRex responds to your comment ["The other day Archbishop Cordileone was “installed” (a fitting word given the shape of the Cathedral in San Francisco). ] with this observation: “If a bishop/archbishop is ‘installed,’ that makes the diocese exorcist ‘internet security.’ “

  16. Dennis Martin says:

    From the updated account, it appears that the Episcopal Church bishop arrived too late to be seated with the group he was to have been seated with, in front of the nave. Presumably they were escorted to their seats well before the ceremony began. Having arrived too late for that, he tried to join the Eastern Orthodox dignitaries and was stopped from that. The SF Archdiocese staff then were trying to find a way, discreetly, to get him into his seat with the other Protestant and interreligious dignitaries. By the time they came back for him, it was after the ceremony had begun, at 2:00, and he had already departed in a huff.

    His account seems to have omitted just enough of these details to give a very false impression.

    Did the SF Catholic Archidiocese handle this ignobly? I think not. I think he set up a chain of unfortunate events by arriving just a tad late. After his utterly uncharitable “welcome letter,” he was still being welcomed, but in the seating proper to the status of the Episcopal Church as Catholics see it.

    If he was unhappy with being seated together with the other Protestants instead of with the Orthodox, then he should have simply declined the invitation.

    He had to have known where he was to be seated (surely the arrangements were specified in advance?). Is it possible that he actually deliberately tried to sneak in with the Orthodox? I suppose not. But his uncharitable letter and his going public with false witness makes that at least a possibility.

    Whatever became of the Episcopalians’ pride in being oh-s0-Britishly proper as far as the niceties of ceremony and courteoisie are concerned?

  17. mrsmontoya says:

    Also, in response to anyone wanting to see intentional exclusion in regards to the Episcopalian cleric, please bear in mind that planning and organizing such an event (with hundreds of clerical dignitaries) is a nightmare, and it would take more energy than it is worth to focus so much malice on one person. Behind the scenes the event is an absolute zoo, so the spokesman’s account is more likely accurate.

    I also agree with @Tzard’s observations as well.

  18. Sandra_in_Severn says:

    Wait! I thought I read somewhere that the Episcopalian bishop was LATE to arrive? Showed up just before the Clergy processed in? There was no way he could have vested (if that was his intent) and no way to just “walk” to his seat either?

    Sounds like a “Much Ado About Nothing” to me.

    May Archbishop Cordileone be strengthen by the prayers of all the faithful.

  19. anna 6 says:

    I am in total agreement with Tzard and Dennis Martin.
    I highly doubt that with all 0f the spiritual preparation, protocol demands and ceremony of an archbishop’s installation that Cordeleone or his staff would put energy into planning a snub of Andrus. I think that they had a bit more on their minds…
    Sorry, but Andrus comes off as puerile and self-absorbed. He came with an attitude and assumed that the archdiocese would behave in as petty a way as he had.

    BTW, if you notice, in the letter written by Andrus in advance of the installation, he makes it clear that his priority as a bishop is to work for the rights of GLBT persons. NOT, proclaim the gospel…or to help people come to know Christ…but to make a political point. Sad.

  20. lucy says:

    Dennis Martin – my sentiments exactly!

  21. VexillaRegis says:

    Hmm. Fishy thing. Does anyone know at what time bp Andrus was supposed to be there? Having often been involved in the planning and directing of this sort of high profile things as an organist, I must say, that arriving at 1.30 for a mass that begins at 2.00, seems VERY late. If your platoon has marched off, you are left behind.

  22. Dennis, your comment makes a lot of assumptions that you place too much weight on:

    “it appears that the Episcopal Church bishop arrived too late to be seated with the group he was to have been seated with, in front of the nave”

    On the contrary, Bishop Andrus says that his assistant was told by the Archdiocese to arrive no later than 1:45. He arrived at 1:30 and was in the lower level of the church by 1:40, earlier than he was told to arrive.

    “The SF Archdiocese staff then were trying to find a way, discreetly, to get him into his seat with the other Protestant and interreligious dignitaries. By the time they came back for him, it was after the ceremony had begun, at 2:00, and he had already departed in a huff.”

    Seeing as how other people routinely enter church up to a minute before liturgies begin, what special steps needed to be taken to bring Bishop Andrus upstairs into the church, and seat him in the empty space where he was expected to be? Does it take 15 minutes to do that?

    Moreover, the most discreet time to seat a person would be before the liturgy begins. Bishop Andrus says he was still waiting to be seated at 2:00 PM.

    “His account seems to have omitted just enough of these details to give a very false impression.”

    “These details” are details you have assumed into being. If they are not in fact true, that would be a very good reason for omitting them.

    “I think he set up a chain of unfortunate events by arriving just a tad late.”

    He arrived earlier than he was told to arrive.

    After his utterly uncharitable “welcome letter,” he was still being welcomed, but in the seating proper to the status of the Episcopal Church as Catholics see it.

    If he was unhappy with being seated together with the other Protestants instead of with the Orthodox, then he should have simply declined the invitation. He had to have known where he was to be seated (surely the arrangements were specified in advance?).”

    Has he expressed disappointment in where he was to be seated?

    “Is it possible that he actually deliberately tried to sneak in with the Orthodox? I suppose not. But his uncharitable letter and his going public with false witness makes that at least a possibility.”

    This is the second assumption of yours that Bishop Andrus took the initiative to go upstairs with the Orthodox. As he describes it, “an archdiocesan employee attempted to escort me upstairs with the Greek Orthodox group.”

    It would also have been reasonable for him to assume he was going upstairs with the other clergy, because after they went upstairs, “no other guests remained in the downstairs area.”

    Have we heard the complete story? I doubt it. But I also doubt there is much blame that can be placed on Bishop Andrus, at least as far as his punctuality and intentions.

    If he was going to be denied entrance, he should have been told that up front and clearly. No need for a junior-high-style “waiting game”.

  23. Vexilla, regardless of whether 1:30 is too late to arrive for a 2:00 PM liturgy, the Greek clergy were not seated until after he had arrived. So why couldn’t Bishop Andrus be seated around the same time, wherever it was he was to sit?

  24. Pingback: The talk of the town concerns ecumenical relations in San Francisco | Foolishness to the world

  25. VexillaRegis says:

    @Jeffrey P: I think this is an example of miscommunication between the ushers. Mobile phones could have solved the problem. However Bp Andrus should have had some patience, after all one can sneak into a seat during the processional music or first hymn.

    Andrus seems to be out to get the Catholic church and it’s extremely impolite to accept an invitation to whatever feast it is and then write nasty things about the host in a newspaper just before the festivities. That’s not what gentlemen do.

  26. Dennis Martin says:

    Jeffrey Pinyan,

    I made some assumptions and I clearly stated that I DOUBTED that he intentionally tried to manipulate things in order to be seated with the Orthodox. Because of the other “fishy” things, I mentioned that as a possibility, but on balance, a doubtful one.

    There are a number of things in his account that don’t really work. I am not making rash assumptions. Please read the comments at the “update” Episcopal Church SF site. That’s where it becomes clear, from comments late in the thread, that there was a clear distinction between the Orthodox and the other ecumenical and interreligious guests. That’s the KEY to my analysis.

    He says he was instructed to be there by 1:45. Yet by 1:50 all the guests were out of the staging area, he says. It’s possible, of course, that the Protestant guests were moved out of the staging area in 5 minutes time.

    The Orthodox are from a Sister Church and had a distinct status among the guests. They were to be led upstairs as the last group. The Protestants were to be seated in the front of the nave. They were take upstairs first. It’s possible that they were only taken up stairs after 1:45 and by 1:50 all guests (including the Orthodox) were on their way upstairs.

    I find it odd that his account has nothing to say about other Protestants or other religious leaders in the staging area. He mentions only the Orthodox, one of whom he knew personally. Could it be that the others were mostly or entirely gone by the time he got there? What happened in the time from 1:30 to 1:45? Did he really get there at 1:30 or was it, say, 1:34 when he was dropped off and closer to 1:40 by the time he found his way to the staging area, about the time his group had just left? No way to know (please note, I am acknowledging speculation) but I don’t trust his precise numbers.

    Why not?

    To a historian accustomed to reading texts critically, there’s a curious gap in the first 15 minutes and everything else concentrated in five minutes, from 1:45 to 1:50, which is very late in the stages of assembling groups for a complex ceremony. There’s a curious absence of any reference to greeting any of his fellow Protestant dignitaries.

    Perhaps everything happened just as he says. Perhaps not. My assumptions about the sequence of events are eminently reasonable, but of course, they are assumptions and I never wrote otherwise.

    The speculation that is doubtful, I noted as being doubtful.

    If the Episcopal bishop of San Francisco had not written that false “welcome letter,” perhaps I would be a lot less suspicious.

    That was not a “welcome” letter. That he labels it such right away tells me that he cuts corners on the truth. And THAT is not an assumption. That’s a clear fact.

    He never mentions anyone other than the Orthodox being there when he arrived.

    He says that a staff member tried to escort him with the Orthodox but another staff member stopped that. That would make sense IF the group he was to have been seated with was already gone. It also would explain why the staff member who blocked him going with the Orthodox did not redirect him to the Protestant group.

    Things just don’t add up in his account.

  27. Dennis Martin says:

    Addendum: given the distinct seating and roles of the Orthodox compared to the other Protestant and interreligious dignitaries, it is quite plausible that THEY DIDN’T HAVE ANY PLACE TO PUT HIM IF HE HAD GONE UPSTAIRS WITH THE ORTHDOX and that that’s why the staff member countermanded the staffer who was trying to add him to the Orthodox–to avoid embarrassment to all concerned.

    But, if the group he was supposed to be seated with was already gone, they couldn’t direct him to that group. And they’d also have to finesse bringing him into that seating area after all the others were seated and needed time to figure out how to do it.

    It was 1:50. They asked him to wait. They did come back, apparently with a plan to discreetly seat him. But he had left, at 2:00 pm on the dot, in a huff.

  28. Dennis Martin says:

    Jeffrey Pinyan wrote:
    “It would also have been reasonable for him to assume he was going upstairs with the other clergy, because after they went upstairs, “no other guests remained in the downstairs area.”

    Sounds to me like you are making an assumption about what would have been reasonable for him to assume.

    It does not sound reasonable to me, given the clear protocol distinction between the Orthodox as a Sister Church and the Episcopal Church as an ecclesial communion.

    And you assume that he was supposed to have gone with the “other clergy” because no other guests remained in the staging area after the Orthodox departed.

    It depends on why he found himself with only the Orthodox group and himself and no one else. It might be because he was intended to go with the Orthodox but then again, it might be because of the assumptions I made about him having missed (for whatever reasons) the departure of the group he belonged to.

    Which assumption, yours or mine, better fits the data he offered? And why does he offer not data whatsoever about any guests except the Orthodox?

  29. Vexilla: one can sneak into a seat during the processional music or first hymn

    Again, it’s a lot more discreet to be seated before the processional music or first hymn.

    Andrus seems to be out to get the Catholic church

    I figure he disagrees (and strongly!) with the Catholic Church’s beliefs concerning homosexuality, while he agrees with the Catholic Church’s beliefs in other areas. Otherwise he wouldn’t have said that “despite this difference of opinion and support, [he looks] forward to working with Archbishop-designate Cordileone when and how [they] can.”

    That’s not what gentlemen do.

    And if Bishop Andrus was snubbed at the installation Mass, is that the gentlemanly thing to do?

  30. Dennis Martin says:

    I note that Bishop Andrus himself states that he did not arrive at the staging area until 1:40. He was dropped off at 1:30.

  31. Dennis: that false “welcome letter” [...] That was not a “welcome” letter. That he labels it such right away tells me that he cuts corners on the truth. And THAT is not an assumption. That’s a clear fact.

    Where did Bishop Andrus call the letter a “welcome” letter?

    The name of his blog post is “Letter to the [Episcopal] Diocese of California concerning the installation of Salvatore Cordileone as Archbishop of San Francisco”. The only places he uses the word “welcome” (twice) are in the context of welcoming disaffected Catholics into the Episcopal 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. Even as we welcome those who may join us and look for ways to work with our Roman Catholic siblings in the faith, we will not be silenced in our proclamation of God’s inclusion.”

    Others (e.g. Mark Brumley at Catholic World Report) have called Bishop Andrus’ letter to his own flock an expression of “welcome” to the Archbishop. But that is not found in the word (nor, in my estimation, the spirit) of the letter.

  32. VexillaRegis says:

    @Jeffrey P: Yes, it’s a lot more discreet to be seated before the processional music, but I think he should have given the hosts a chance to sneak him in even though he heard (obviously) that the Mass had started. What really happened in the cellar, and in what order, isn’t completely clear to me.

    If Bp Andrus was snubbed , that’s Not the gentlemanly thing to do. However, a real gentleman doesn’t seek revenge. In a case like this, the gentleman either says nothing or he calls the host and asks what happened in a nice and non confrontational way. To say that he seems to be out to get the Catholic church, was maybe a little bit too strong, I apologise. :-)

  33. benedetta says:

    It sounds like he arrived with a chip on his shoulder, animus towards Catholics in general, and then felt paranoid as he waited alone to be brought up, and was nervous about being brought to his seat by himself at that point. Instead of waiting just the required longer, he chose to leave and then make a federal case out of what happened, self confirming prophecy of his. It also sounds like he couldn’t deal with the fact that the Greek Orthodox, whom he knew, were getting seated ahead of him. This guy seems determined to create a sideshow to go along with the Archbishop’s installation.

    To anyone who dissents and hates the Catholic church, I say, accept his invitation! Start in your own backyard: Pelosi.

  34. I have no knowledge whatsoever of what happened here. However, in reading all the available accounts and comments, I have seen no clear evidence of any intentional affront or snub, and in the absence of such evidence it does not seem prudent to conclude that any such occurred.

    While I do not know that this is what happened, in every such event I have witnessed, the quests not processing to the sanctuary (as invited Orthodox bishops might) but rather seated down front in the nave–as invited Protestant clergy would be–have been placed there well before the start of the ceremony, well before the 15 minutes early that the Episcopal bishop says he arrived.

    So it may simply be that the ushers involved had not been given proper instructions as to how to handle the unexpected emergency of a guest showing up late in the wrong staging area. It remains possible that some low-level functionary had an ulterior motive, but in the absence of evidence of this, I myself would prefer not to make this uncharitable assumption about anyone.

  35. KevinSymonds says:

    If this “Bishop” modified his statement, that implies a possibility he is trying to cover his tracks. Any other discussion of “snubbing” clearly ought to play second fiddle against this fact.

  36. Kevin: do you have a copy of the alleged earlier version of the statement?

  37. An October 2 comment (from cal-catholic.com) shows the same text that was provided as possibly altered:

    “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.”

    Compare that with the following, and I think they are identical.

    “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.”

  38. Fabrizio says:

    “Take the crozier, leave the cannoli”

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  39. JohnE says:

    If you set fire to a bridge, don’t act surprised when you are unable to cross it.

  40. Bea says:

    According to the Episcopalian account (as I read on the link Fr. Z provided) B. Andrus was supposed to have arrived at 1:45. He arrived at 1:40 which he calls “early”

    I posted something there in defense of Arbp. Cordileone. I hope they keep the post.
    Maybe more of us could go over there and defend the issue.

    As Sandra_in_Severn says it’s “much ado about nothing”

  41. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    In his original letter, Marc Andrus writes, “I hope that public disagreements can be handled respectfully and that criticisms of public statements may be met with mutual respect.” If his ‘views’ were known before the letter, why was he invited? – it could have been respectfully explained to him that his previous “public statements” disqualified him. If, somehow, they were not known (or recalled) till after the invitation – and especially if they became known in connexion with the letter – why was he not respectfully disinvited? Even failing that, ought he not to have been respectfully told after his arrival in the lower level room that he was disinvited? It would probably have been a generally embarrassing situation, but not a snub, as a snub involves such things as “sharp words or marked want of cordiality” (COD).

    Is it not more problematical, if someone was attempting to find a way to seat him?

  42. This maybe a good place to apply the wise dictum–the provenance of which I do not recall–which says, “Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be explained by incompetence.”

    Please note, I am not labeling anyone associated with the event as “incompetent”; just that events like this involve lots of moving parts, and people get turned around and mixed up. Who knows? Maybe the Episcopal bishop was on time, but the group he was supposed to join was sent upstairs early? That he might have taken 10 minutes to get from his drop-off point to where he was supposed to gather does not sound surprising. I’ve visited a parish, either to offer Mass, or hear confessions, or join some other event, and it can be hard just to find where you’re supposed to be–that’s a parish. Also, he may have been “on time” when he arrived at one point, but not when he arrived where the MCs were looking for him. It may be the folks doing the lining-up were flustered, even getting frantic. It may be someone didn’t realize right away which group he belonged to. On and on it goes.

    All that said, if it really is true someone singled him out, it’s hard to imagine freelancing that. And, if someone really said, “we don’t want that Andrus guy seated,” why not just tell him? “Bishop, your letter didn’t sit well with us. Under the circumstances…”

    So…anything is possible, but I go back to the principle on which I built this mini-essay.

  43. KevinSymonds says:

    Ah, I see my mistake. I read wrongly the citation Fr. Z. gave at the beginning.

    My apologies.

  44. jbpolhamus says:

    It’s all rather disingenuous on both of their parts, but this is just the Catholics and Anglicans of San Francisco getting used to the new diplomatic situation. Of course he wasn’t going to be admitted, after the things he has said and done, which fly in the face of received Roman Catholic doctrine. How the Episcopals feel about Anglicanorum Coetibus is of no matter. It is our doctrine and their response to it that is germane…it always has been. I’m sure Bishop Andrus places a high value on the concept of “tough love” in the context of modern social-services, but he seems to be having a hard time recognizing the value of an intervention when it has been applied to himself. Andrus picked this fight, and found what he expected to find: the door to the sanctuary was barred. That would be surprising only to one who is in the throes of an addiction to a behaviour. But this Archbishop is not Levada, or Niederauer. He is a Roman Catholic, and that stuff isn’t going to fly with him. Andrus knows that. And now we all see it…thanks be to Almighty God in heaven. The wonder is that Andrus was even allowed into the basement, which was generous under the circumstances. Others will find exactly the same thing in the future, just as Apb. Muller is discovering in Rome at the moment, that the truths of the Faith are non-negotiable…even in San Francisco.

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  45. Of course he wasn’t going to be admitted, after the things he has said and done, which fly in the face of received Roman Catholic doctrine.

    I presume Bishop Andrus’ stance on homosexuality didn’t ONLY come to light a week ago. If that is the case, why did he receive an invitation in the first place?

  46. To clarify my previous comment, I mean, if Bishop Andrus was disinvited “after the things he has said and done” (i.e. the infamous letter), why was he invited in the first place?

    I dare say some of the Greek Orthodox clergy say and do things in opposition to Roman Catholic doctrine… but they were invited.

  47. PostCatholic says:

    The whole thing seems rather petty.

    And having now read Bp. Andrus’ letter that seems to have sparked the controversy, I guess I can’t share your outrage at the decontexualized quotes contained in it. The letter is addressed to his faith community, not to Abp. Cordileone (actually, since when do we address church prelates as “Mister” or invent new titles such as “Headpastor”? What’s sauce for the goose can be for the gander, I should think) or to Catholics, does not call on the new archbishop to make any changes to Catholic doctrine, and states his commitment to his own views for his faith community’s understanding and acceptance. Ordinarily, when a new religious leader arrives in a neighboring faith, all that is required is a word of welcome and if possible, a pledge of mutual cooperation, so the letter is extraordinary in my view but presumably Andrus

    The line I think was in poor taste was “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.” My own church (not Episcopalian) is at the moment a congregation of about a 1/3 ex-Catholic. Post-Cardinal McCarrick, we saw a steady stream of visitors and new members disaffected by Archbishop Wuerl’s administration. I think it was an odd place and time to make a reminder of hospitality, and to me that statement does skate close to proselytizing, but it didn’t cross the border–it spoke to a sad reality.

  48. ugaprof says:

    There’s a lot going on here, but I think several people have gotten to the heart of it — this Episcopal bishop was somehow mistakenly grouped with the Eastern Orthodox and then wasn’t eligible to be seated with them. Possibly a miscommunication between cathedral staff members.

    As for “Never attribute to malice…” I’ve never found the original source, but something like it appears a letter written in Latin by C. S. Lewis to Don Giovanni Calabria: “Caritas nihil malitiae imputat quod potest ex simplici stultitia et ignorantia evenire.”

  49. Pingback: Art Doctors of the Church Dante God Marc Andrus Dating | Big Pulpit