On Sunday, 21 September 2008, we published an item on the apology and service of repentence carried out by Bishop Shori, P.B. of ECUSA, the Episcopal Church of the United States.You can read the post at:
http://nonivorytower.blogspot.com/2008/09/stuff-of-hypocrisy-and-poppycock-bishop.html
On 8 September 2009, Anonymous wrote a reply, calling our post 'rubbish' and nit-picking.
Anon's definition of real repentence does not require the real penitent to have done anything wrong for which he or she is sorry, rather only that the penitent be sorry that the misdeed was done at all by someone, anyone, anytime.
Anon further allows that the 'real meaning' of repentence is merely that one have a 'change of mind' in order to carry out a real act of repentence.
And finally, rather than criticize the sincerely and meaningfully penitent P.B., Anon believes that The Study should praise her and TEC for being sorry for slavery practiced by members of TEC.
What should one say to this?
Couple of things.
One is that there are definitions and there are definitions. The one we used is one and it is a real one. It may not be one sufficient to satisfy Anon. But it says:
re·pent
1. To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it:
3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins. [emphasis mine]
Note the personal tone of the definitions, personal and specific. NOT general, not generic. The penitent is to feel the remorse for what he or she has done and is expected to change his or her mind regarding said behavior.
Did the P.B. once approve of slavery??? I/we think she did not change her mind, unless she is a former slaver.And she is/was not.
And the penitent is to make a change for the better. TEC cannot change the insitutution's mind about slavery because it has already done so. She is not changing anything. She is not penitent for anything she has ever done.
She is not changing her mind.
Her service of apology and repentence is thusly not what Anon apparently thinks it was, that is, the real thing.
Come on Anon.
You are missing the points!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I had to go back to my own post on this topic at The Mole Hole and look at my reaction at the time.
I found that my real issue with our misguided PB, was not at all concerning the act of being remorseful or in having regret about slavery, but rather the notion that any individual or institution can apologize for something they had no influence on, or actual involvement in. The answer, of course, is that they cannot.
But it's late, and at the risk of rewriting my post here, I will simply close by stating factually that Ms. Shori speaks for fewer and fewer individuals every day as the Episcopal Church contracts around her, and much of that is of her own doing.
So perhaps she (and supporters like "Anon") can take some solace in their belief that someday, a future generation can "apologize" for them, and their actions at the devisive and destructive actions they are bringing upon our Church.
But if ask me, is won't matter then either.
Post a Comment