Thursday, September 07, 2006

the rhetoric

Here is an article that says something annoying. Actually, it says a number of annoying things. The one I am thinking of is the facile use of the term "reconciliation" pioneerd by ++Griswold. Ugh. The quote I am thinking of:

"The Lambeth Conference in 2008, rather than being a vehicle for reconciliation, is much more likely to be the catalyst for formalizing this division."

What can this mean? "Reconciliation" can only be understood here as meaning that the proponents of homosexual practice get to continue doing what they are doing while continuing to call themselves "Anglican" in the same sense as those Anglicans who maintain fidelity to the Apostolic teaching. In what sense is this "reconciliation"? Reconciled to what? To whom? How reconciled?

This article also embraces another of my pet peeves: it says that the issue for conservatives is clerics (and others) who are "openly" homosexual. That's not the problem. Who cares about "open" homosexuality? The problem is action. Not openness.

No comments: