Per Christum Catholic Blog

I haven’t been reading mainline Protestant blogs much these days (except T-19 for news, and some of the blogs of my seminary friends), but I recently foolishly branched out and came across this post by Katie Sherrod about how conservatives are determined to wreck the Episcopal church, and in doing so, are acting like abusers. Seeing as how we Catholics have our regular political battles I thought I would respond. First, I think throwing around the word “abuse” for cases that really aren’t lessons the impact of real abuse, which many of us work hard to stop. I spend a lot of time, and have spent a lot of time, educating students on the dangers of real abuse, and we do not need to trivialize the word. What is going on in ECUSA, in my opinion, is the dynamics of strongly held differing political and moral ideas more than anything else. The conservatives are not strong, overpowering dominators, nor are the liberals powerless, brainwashed victims. Both sides are very political, very sure of themselves, and very shrewd. Second, and my biggest issue with this whole post, is that the left uses the exact same tactics, so if there is any abuse going on in the Episcopal church or any other mainline church, it is mutual abuse. In fact, if anybody is getting abused, it is the poor moderates! Let me excerpt a few parts of Katie’s post and show you what I mean.

The context of the post is that Katie listed signs of real abuse, and then she detailed how progressives are being abused by conservatives. Katie’s words are italicized.

This list could well be a strategy memo for those conservatives who are determined to wreck the Episcopal Church and/or to replace it with their own “purified” NeoPuritan version. One can go down the list and check it off.

Uses emotional abuse and calls you names? Try “pagan”” and ““revisionist”” and ““heretic.””

Try hater, caveman, fundy, idiot, right-wing nut, and so forth. Progressives never name-call? Please. I can hear the response from the left now, “but those conservatives really are haters!” Well to conservatives I am sure the progressive position seems pretty, well, revisionist. And trust me, having attended two mainline seminaries, I can tell you BOTH sides call names without thinking much of it.


Tries to make you feel guilty? Try claiming that Christians are being killed in majority Muslim countries because TEC elected and confirmed an honestly gay man.

Again, both sides use this tactic. How about “if you oppose the consecration of Gene Robinson you are supporting hate crimes against gays?” I have been told that if you believe homosexual activity is wrong, you hate gays. A commenter on the “There’s a New Boss in Town” post on Fr. Jake’s blog suggested the Catholic Church has instituted a pogrom against gays? Really? That is very serious, worthy of criminal investigation, considering the definition of pogrom. Any evidence of this? Nope, but it sure might make a person feel guilty. Sure conservatives lay on the guilt, but so do progressives. Again, left and right share the same tactics.

Plays mind games? Try claiming that Lambeth resolutions have the power of laws, or that TEC has been “kicked out of” the Anglican Communion, or that the Windsor Report is some kind of judgment from on high against us.

Again, both sides play these games. What about “Anglicans don’t have doctrinal standards” or “Anglicans have never cared about doctrine?” Mind games? Not really. A certain understanding of what Anglicanism is or what progressives think Anglicanism should be? Yes. This is exactly what Katie’s examples mentioned above are as well, a certain understanding of what Anglicanism is, or what conservatives want it to be.

Uses coercion and threats? Try threats of leaving, again and again and again and again.

Again, used by both sides. What about “we won’t marry anybody if we can’t marry gays” or “we just won’t ordain anybody if we can’t ordain whom we want.” Also, what about in the 1970s when women were ordained against the canons of the Episcopal church? Was this a threat or coercion? Objectively, I would say it was both. But if you think it was the right thing to do, apparently it is not abusive. Trust me, I have heard threat after theat from many on the left and right if they don’t get their way.

Uses economic abuse. Try withholding money from the national church.

Ok, I don’t really undestand this at all. When the left boycotts Wal-Mart or divests of Israel is it economic abuse? Or is it a justice issue? Perhaps when BOTH sides withhold money it is a way of using finance to protest perceived unjust or immoral actions. It depends on what side you agree with I guess, as to whether it is a justice issue or economic abuse. And what if the tables were turned and the majority of ECUSA was conservative, would progressives willingly send their money to support that or would they withhold funds? Probably the latter.

Uses gender privilege. Surely I don’t have to explain this one.

Honestly, this could have been written by either side. I have heard Episcopal male seminarians complain of not being taken seriously, receiving less scholarship money, and being put down at least in part because of their sex. I have heard progressive females claim the same thing. Maybe both sides are right to a degree, but again, both sides seem to benefit from “gender politics.” It just depends on your environment as to whether being a man is more helpful or being a woman is more helpful.

Here are a few Katie listed in the general part of the article, but didn’t relate to conservatives, so let me relate them to folks on all sides:

Abusers use intimidation

Yes, like women priests threatening to go into dioceses that don’t ordain women and celebrate the sacraments. And conservatives have appealed to the wider Anglican Communion as intimidation. So again, both sides do it.

Abusers use the children

Both sides are rushing to indoctrinate their children on their views, and I have heard each side say that their views are better for children, so both are guilty.

Abusers use isolation

This cuts both ways as well. I know of conservatives who feel very, very lonely in liberal dioceses and seminaries. I know of many liberals who feel the same way in conservative areas. Both sides are very good at isolating others.

Abusers minimize, deny, blame

I think the initial comment on Katie’s blog is appropos: Conservatives want to wreck the Episcopal church. Liberals apparently have had no part in it, right? It is never helpful to blame, and placing the blame on what is happening on one side is inaccurate. The liberals in ECUSA are not helpless, brainwashed, battered persons, as is the case with many of the abused, but rather well-organized and highly-political individuals. There is nothing wrong with this, but blaming conservatives for using tactics liberals have made use of for years is hypocritical.

You do it. Go down the list and see what you come up with. So. Once it is determined someone is in an abusive relationship, what happens next?

First of all, the liberals are firmly in charge in ECUSA. They are the dreaded “victors,” you know, the oppressive winners who get to write the history. You can’t keep playing the victim routine once you are firmly in power. So what happens next should first be a realization of who is in charge in ECUSA.

Second, the reason these battles constantly happen, and the reason both sides act like they do, is because of politics. Call it whatever you want, abuse, or emotional politics, but both sides do it, and quite frankly both sides, to the detriment of charity, do it very well. Part of it is because you have two or more strongly held but mutually exclusive positions operating in the same denomination. Is it any wonder both sides are constantly “abusing” each other? Is it any wonder conservatives are “haters” and liberals are “pagans” and never the twain shall meet? Maybe the best solution is a friendly, brokered split. I know this leaves the “moderates” in a bad position, but what else is there? I think both sides would thrive if they were more united, which may just take a split.