MRSA Facts Being Neutered

Fact: a new strain of MRSA, the drug resistant Staph infection is attacking the Gay community at alarming rates. Gay advocacy groups don't want that information to be disseminated.

"The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other organizations began to jump up and down a bit and scream, and The New York Times and other organizations started to backpedal," Barber said. Rather than reporting the behaviors associated with the outbreak and its danger to others, Barber said, "The story now became about how groups like mine were supposedly misrepresenting the outbreak as some sort of 'new gay plague' or 'the new AIDS' - things we never said."

The homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign accused CWA and others of being “anti-gay bigots” for recommending homosexual men curtail their sexual activities.

"Serious medical issues deserve serious consideration, not wildly off-the-mark press releases from anti-gay groups trying to capture media attention," HRC President Joe Solmonese said in a news release. Solmonese called the conservative organizations’ responses a kind of “hysteria,” which he thought resembled some reactions to the outbreak of HIV/AIDS in the early 1980s.

Actually, I identified this as 'the new AIDS' when the story broke. Why? It is simple to not spread this disease, like AIDS.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention also emphasized that the new MRSA strain is "not a sexually transmitted disease in the classic sense," saying the bacteria’s spread could be stopped by washing hands and covering open wounds.

An internationally known infectious disease specialist, Dr. John Diggs, told Cybercast News Service that the outbreak was “especially troubling” because the microbe can spread to the wider community.

Though MRSA has typically been confined to hospitals, he said, "You can take something that was relatively isolated in a small place, and suddenly, when it spreads to the general population, things such as school wrestling matches, or football games or basketball games or other sporting events, can take on a specter - they can become deadly.”

Dr. Diggs said the university study itself said the MRSA infection manifests itself as "an abscess in the buttocks, genitals or perineum," concluding the microbe "probably started out in San Francisco, and has been disseminated by the frequent cross-coastal travel" of homosexual men between San Francisco and Boston.

"Men who practice anal sex, men who have promiscuous sex, men who have multiple partners in short periods of time are much more likely to spread this disease," he said to Cybercast News Service. "It's not because of who they are. It's because of what they do."

"When you face that reality, then you have to start taking a serious look and deciding that the best public health intervention is to discourage behavior that causes the infection to spread," Dr. Diggs said.

Again, we see a culture that wants no consequences for its actions. If this had been introduced into a sexually promiscuous heterosexual community, the result would be the same. The homosexual community is generally quite promiscuous, and is therefore a great place for a skin infection to spread. Is it wrong to tell people to stop having so much sex so that they don't contract a deadly infection? Wouldn't be worse to not tell people that it was quite prevalent in the gay community, and not warn them about the lifestyle choices that make it more dangerous? But, I guess as long as we don't offend anybody, it won't be a problem, right?

Abortion Pill causes Excommunication

Brasilia, Jan 26, 2008 / 01:48 am (CNA).- Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda e Recife, Brazil strongly criticized a plan by local officials to widely distribute the morning-after pill during the upcoming Carnival festival and warned that those who use the pill are subject to excommunication.

The archbishop took note that because of widespread “casual sex” that occurs during Carnival—the festival that precedes Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent—the morning-after pill will be widely distributed, in addition to thousands of condoms.

On Thursday Archbishop Cardoso said the distribution of the pill which is an abortifacient “is aberrant and illegal,” since in Brazil abortion is illegal.

He said the archdiocese intends to ask the courts to block the plan and warned that those who use the pill are subject to excommunication. “This policy is wicked and immoral, and in this case, both those who use it and those who incite its use are committing a crime punishable by excommunication,” Archbishop Cardoso said.

He also said he would provide guidance to priests in the archdiocese regarding how to address the issue from the pulpit.

This is just another sad example of how modern culture wants no consequences for actions. Abortion is illegal there, and yet, "local officials" will be distributing the morning after pill. Now, I know that the pill can be licitly used in certain circumstances, for instance after a rape when a test has confirmed that ovulation has not occurred. That is not the intention of this practice. These people want nothing more than to have as much sex as they can, with no consequences.

I applaud the Archbishop for speaking out for the Truth. I am sad when I hear stories where the Bishops in various parts make a deal with the devil, as it were, and compromise with lawmakers who want to mandate the use of the morning after pill.

Status of the Jesuits

Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, S.J., the new superior general of the Jesuits, insists that there is no conflict between the order and the Pope. I'm not so sure he really sees what is happening. I have a couple articles about his press conference.

Fr. Nicolas’ statement included some brief stories and anecdotes illustrating his long pastoral experience in Asia. "I am in Asia and Asia is in me, and that is good for the Church," he said.

"There has never been and there is not opposition between the Pope and the Society of Jesus, between the Jesuits and the Vatican," Fr. Nicolas said in his statement.

"It is not true that there is a theological distance between the new General of the Jesuits and Pope Ratzinger," he added.

Asia is in him. I hope that doesn't mean new-age eastern theology is in him. Also, can he really say that there has never been opposition between the Pope and the Jesuits? Does he forget the Jesuit Intervention in 1981?

Rome, Jan. 25, 2008 (CWNews.com) - In a January 25 statement to reporters in Rome, the new superior general of the Society of Jesus said that the Jesuits remain loyal to the Pope. "If there are problems" in the relationship, he said, "it is precisely because we are so close."

Father Adolfo Nicolas compared the relationship between the Jesuit order and the Holy See to a marriage, observing there are always tensions between loving couples. But as in a marriage, he added, the Jesuits and the Pope are wholly dedicated to the same goal: the welfare of the Church.

Downplaying suggestions that the Jesuit order is at loggerheads with Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news), Father Nicolas recalled that he had studied the works of then-Father Joseph Ratzinger years earlier and found them inspirational. Theological disagreements between himself and the Holy Father, he insisted, exist only "in the imaginations of those who have written" on that topic. The new Jesuit leader told journalists that his own views on religion have been heavily influenced by his years in Japan. Before serving in Asia, he said, he had firm and unyielding views about what constitutes proper religious faith and practice. In Japan, he reported, such attitudes are seen as intolerant; the Asian approach accepts a wide diversity of views. "In Japan," Father Nicolas said, "I discovered that true religion goes much deeper."

I see that, yes, "proper religious faith and practice" can indeed take on many forms. Even the Pope has said this. This is why we have the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. This is why there are so many popular devotions. I worry, though, when I see words like "accepting a diversity of views". If our language hadn't been hijacked, this would not be a problem, but the connotations of this tend to be a bit more permissive than they should mean. I hope he realizes that there exists One True religion. This is another place where some Jesuits have had troubles, in the uniqueness and necessity of Christ.

I've heard about Jesuits before, and I don't buy that it is because "they are so close" that the CDF has to send out notifications about members of the Order.

Sickening

Reading this story made me sick, just sick.

Schenectady, NY, Jan 24, 2008 / 11:32 am (CNA).- Religious leaders in favor of abortion gathered on Tuesday to bless an abortion clinic in support of the Roe v. Wade ruling, the Supreme Court decision that mandated legalized abortion nationwide. One Catholic leader described the ceremony as “two-faced”.

Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Linda Scharf described the purpose of the event at a new 18,000 square-foot building to the Albany-based Times Union, saying, “It’s a blessing to demonstrate the support of the clergy.”

She said that clergy had long supported Planned Parenthood and the right “to make a personal decision based on their moral beliefs.”

"The clergy were instrumental in getting abortion services legalized in the United States and right here in Schenectady," she added. "I know a member of the clergy who was part of an underground who directed young women to safe abortions before Roe v. Wade."

According to the Albany Times Union, Rev. Larry Phillips of Schenectady's Emmanuel-Friedens Church declared the ground "sacred and holy ... where women's voices and stories are welcomed, valued and affirmed; sacred ground where women are treated with dignity, supported in their role as moral decision-makers ... sacred ground where the violent voices of hatred and oppression are quelled."

Another minister prayed that the clinic be made a place of safety with a sense of sanctuary. A rabbi blew a religious musical instrument called a shofar “as a renewal of commitment” to “reproductive rights.”

All participants laid their hands on the building as another minister declared, “This is sacred ground.”

Nothing can even be said to that.

UPDATE: Czech government reaches agreement with Church

Prague, Jan. 24, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Czech Republic has agreed to pay $4.6 billion to compensate Christian churches for the properties that were confiscated by the Communist regime, in 1948 the KAI news agency reports.

The government compensation would be offered to 17 different Christian groups whose properties were seized, with the payments beginning in 2009.

The proposed agreement must still be approved by the Czech parliament, where the governing three-party coalition has only 100 of the 200 seats. Several parliamentarians from the largest party, the Civic Democratic Party, have questioned the settlement.

In 1990-1991, the government of what was then Czechoslovakia took a preliminary step toward resolving claims by returning 169 properties. The Czech Republic is now the last one of the former Communist states to offer a general settlement on church-property claims.

This isn't as good news as it could have been. It would be better if the Church could actually get their properties back. I understand that some of the properties that were seized were probably destroyed or converted by the commies, but some were not. I haven't read if a true agreement was reached regarding the Cathedral, but I wish the Czech government would return the properties that are still churches.

Christianophobia

A new effort in Europe is in existence to combat "Christianophobia", or the irrational fear of Christians and Christianity. They will be putting together a website and documenting cases of fear of Christians by different groups across Europe.

Why are we doing this? This seems to be misguided for a number of reasons. Very few people fear Christianity, maybe only the Devil fears Christians, though not enough to not prey on them. Many people don't like Christianity, or even hate it irrationally, but this is not a "phobia". This is hatred (of one sort or another).

The same can be said of homophobia, which is likely the reason that people are called homophobes whenever they oppose in any way the homosexual lifestyle. I'm not saying that there are not people who genuinely fear homosexuality or the pervasiveness of its culture, because I'm sure there truly are those who could be described as "homophobic". That said, I also believe that a very thin minority of those described as homophobic are truly fearful of homosexuals.

This is the reason why I don't favor the use of "Christianophobia". This is their lie, we don't need to adopt it. Few people actively and actually fear Christianity, many more oppose it in what has always been termed "anti-Christianity". It is not bad to document it, and to confront it. We should indeed complain about it. As much as I don't like Bill Donahue as a blowhard and a windbag, his mission as the lone warrior of defending Catholicism in the media sector is quite important. Without him there is basically nobody keeping track of what people say and do that is overtly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian.

I laud the idea of trying to get organized in a place like Europe where cynical anti-Christianity is so mainstream, but I don't think that following the agenda of these other groups of defining new phobias makes much sense. We should be above that, and show that indeed Christians can preach the truth of the situation and don't have to resort to calling any opposition an "irrational fear". That said, we won't get the same media coverage, but we wouldn't anyways, so we may as well do what we can to respect ourselves.

France's Illegitimacy

According to a little news blurb from EWTN, France in 2006 joined the unwed countries club. More than half of all children born in France in 2006 were born out of wedlock. The article also listed Sweden as having a 55% illegitimacy rate, Great Britain at 42%, and Poland at 15%.

If these were the examples to compare to, that might very well mean that France is ranked 2 in Europe (the World) A quick (read: lazy) search online did not yield anything interesting to confirm that statement. Didn't France use to be a Catholic country? What happened there?

Pope Cancels University Visit

As I reported yesterday, the Pope was planning on speaking at an Italian university amid much protesting from some faculty and students on campus, saying the Pope was anti-science, among other things. The Pope has announced today that he will not be going to the university amid the protests.

Does this mean that they won? I hope not. I think it may better reflect the Pope's prudence in not getting involved with such an unreasonable crowd. "If they don't want me, I'll go somewhere else..." The pope will be publishing the text of the address he was to give.

UPDATE: (01/17/08, 1:47 PM)

Cardinal Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State published a letter he sent to the Dean of the University.

Pope Benedict was scheduled to open the academic year by giving the keynote address at La Sapienza, but according to Cardinal Bertone a “decidedly minority group of professors and students” threatened to protest his visit.

Due to this planned disturbance, the Secretary of State wrote to the rector that “the prerequisites for a dignified and tranquil welcome were not present” and that “it was judged opportune to postpone the scheduled visit in order to remove any pretext for demonstrations which would have been unfortunate for everyone concerned".

Cardinal Bertone also explained why the Pope decided to send his address to the university’s rector. In the letter, the cardinal relates that since the majority of professors and students wished to hear "a culturally meaningful word, whence to draw stimuli for their own journey in search of truth, the Holy Father has instructed that the text he prepared for the occasion be sent to you".

"I don't want any trouble"

Scientests say Pope is Anti-Science

A group of scientists at an Italian University is raising a fuss over an upcoming visit from the Pope. They say that the Pope is anti-reason and anti-science, and should not be honored in an academic setting. (Full Article)

To bolster their position, the 67 protestors cite a 1990 speech in which then-Cardinal Ratzinger defended the Church's disciplinary action against Galileo in 1633. In that talk, the future Pope cited the verdict of the agnostic scholar Paul Feyerabend, who said: "The Church in the age of Galileo clung to reason more than Galileo himself did." He found that the heresy verdict against Galileo was, by the standards of the times, "rational and just."

Although he did not endorse Feyerabend's conclusion-- Pope John Paul II (bio - news) had already acknowledged that the Church erred in condemning Galileo-- Cardinal Ratzinger did stress that the Church was not hostile to science, and in fact Galileo continued his investigations, with support from the hierarchy, even after his trial.

It's Regensburg all over again. At least these scientists won't be blowing up Churches or burning the Pope in effigy. Why is it that they, who insist on "reason" being so important, can't even use a quotation properly? The author of the article gets it right:

The protests against the Pope's visit to La Sapienza have echoed that hostility toward religious faith, claiming that the Church today still suppresses scientific progress. Ironically, to protest that alleged restraint on free inquiry, the group asks university officials to prevent a speech by the Roman Pontiff. Vatican Radio, describing the protests as unworthy of academic life, questioned whether the professors were displaying the "tolerance" that they proclaimed.

This just emphasizes the fact that these scientists, like the militant atheists and the anti-Catholic fundamentalists, don't care to be reasoned, but prefer to just spout their opinions. I compare it to how the Catholic Church can be portrayed as "homophobic" for opposing the disordered lifestyles of that crowd of people, whereas these scientists (or anyone really) are "reasoned" or "enlightened" by opposing the Church, and what it teaches. The university will have an interesting response to the visit.

The dean of the university has said that he will not cancel the Pope's visit. But protests at the school are planned throughout the week, with critics posting anti-clerical slogans around the campus and organizing a "homo-cession"-- a parade of homosexuals and lesbians-- to protest Church teachings.

Of course, the good old "homo-cession". This makes the clearest statement about what this opposition to the visit is really about. It has nothing to do with the Pope's or the Church's supposed opposition to scientific progress. This is about the Church teaching what it has always taught. People still don't like the Church, Jesus promised that it would be that way.

Still, if the Pope told these scientists that they needed to stop doing this or another research, would they? I doubt it. This means he isn't a threat to them. And, there really is no denying that he is perhaps the foremost theologian in Europe right now, which makes him an academic. I'm not sure what the Pope will be talking about there, but it may well touch on the moral obligations of science, which these scientists need to hear.

Man sues over new breasts

This story is only loosely relevant to this weblog, as it only involves a Catholic hospital, and not really anything but freedom, but it really caught my attention.

Headline, CNA: Catholic hospital sued for refusing breast implants to “transgendered”.

Someone who is genetically and was born a male is suing a Catholic run hospital in California (big surprise) because they refused to give him breast implants.

Hastings has already had major sex-change surgery to make his body resemble a woman’s. He chose a plastic surgeon with privileges at Seton to perform the augmentation surgery. According to Hastings, the surgeon, Dr. Leonard Gray, told him that Seton no longer allowed such operations to be performed on transgendered patients.

Seton Medical Center was previously owned by a large hospital conglomerate, Catholic Healthcare West, during which time it apparently allowed the surgery to transgender people. The Daughters of Charity Health System took ownership of the hospital in 2002, and halted the surgeries in 2006 after learning they were taking place.

Kristina Wertz, legal director of the Transgender Law Center in San Francisco, claimed Seton and other area hospitals put up “significant barriers” to care. Wertz believed the hospital’s policy violates the Unruh Act, a state law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. “There's simply no religious exemption in the Unruh Act," Wertz said. "We're talking about a type of care that's OK for one class but not another.”

Since when did sex-change and even breast augmentation become a "type of care". I can see in the case of a breast cancer patient who had to have a mastectomy or some similar situation that this could be considered a "type of care" but when did it become an entitlement for any man or woman?

It really touches on a deeper issue. How did it become acceptable to be "transgendered"? If I wanted to say I was actually a black man stuck in a white man's body, I'd be labeled as nuts. And, race is poorly defined. Gender is not poorly defined for most people, including most "transgendered" people. There's the physical equipment, the genetic karyotype, and I suppose the birth certificate. Why is it that all it takes is to say "I want to be a woman" if you are a man, and you are, or can be? After all you can't discriminate against gender identity, which is independent of gender. How is this not a mental illness?

Abortionists in Spain Vow to Stop

In quite an interesting turn of events, the Abortion Clinics in a consortium in Spain have vowed to close their doors, (CNA). Unfortunately, this is only a temporary state, and is meant as a protest in favor of "women's rights" among other things.

The “Association of Accredited Clinics,” an umbrella group for all abortion clinics in Spain, said the protest was being organized in response to the crackdown on illegal abortions in Barcelona in December, which revealed that a number of clinics performing late-term abortions in violation of the law.

So, the law says that you cannot commit late term abortions, and I'd guess has some requirements about safety of the mother, among other things. This protest is against a crackdown of illegal facilities. Wouldn't this consortium, if they were legal, not mind that the "rabble" were being weeded out. After all, that would eliminate the competition, right?

It's clear that it is not about the application of the law, they just want to be able to kill as many as possible. They are probably also a bit worried, because they are probably not up to snuff, committing illegal abortions all the time.

It's just ironic that in order to protest the cracking down on abortions is stopping abortions. Maybe all the American abortion clinics will take up this, every time someone challenges them. Right.

Bishop: Communion on Tongue is Best

Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan in what is labeled a "historical-liturgical note", wrote that it is a much better practice to receive communion while kneeling and on the tongue.

"If some nonbeliever arrived and observed such an act of adoration perhaps he, too, would 'fall down and worship God, declaring, God is really in your midst,'"

"The awareness of the greatness of the eucharistic mystery is demonstrated in a special way by the manner in which the body of the Lord is distributed and received," the bishop wrote.

In addition to demonstrating true adoration by kneeling, he said, receiving Communion on the tongue also avoids concerns about people receiving the body of Christ with dirty hands or of losing particles of the Eucharist, concerns that make sense if people truly believe in the sacrament.

"Wouldn't it correspond better to the deepest reality and truth about the consecrated bread if even today the faithful would kneel on the ground to receive it, opening their mouths like the prophet receiving the word of God and allowing themselves to be nourished like a child?" Bishop Schneider asked.

This Bishop really sees what is going on. It is not about the laity being any less than the Priest, or something like that. It is the sacramental sign that the Eucharistic species is the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. This is but the least of things we would do if everyone realized what the mass really was, and what the Eucharist really was.

I do not forsee the day when we completely do away with communion in the hand while standing, though I think it should go away quietly. Perhaps, one day, no extraordinary minister of Holy Communion will look at you funny when you step up to them and do not extend your hands. Maybe that's asking too much.

Jesuits need to change -- Cardinal

The Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Cardinal Franc Rode, had some scathing comments about the Jesuits as they enter their General Congregation to select a new leader and set policies.

"Within your charism and your tradition you can find valuable points of reference to enlighten the choices which the Society must make today," Cardinal Rode told them. "Your work must be eminently apostolic with a universal human, ecclesial and evangelical fullness.

"It must always be carried out in the light of your charism, in such a way that the growing participation of laity in your activities does not obscure your identity but rather enriches it with the collaboration of those who, coming from other cultures, share your style and your objectives."

The 73-year-old cardinal also noted a "growing distancing from the hierarchy."

"The Ignatian spirituality of apostolic service 'under the Roman Pontiff' does not allow for this separation," he said. "Religious obedience can be understood only as obedience in love. The fundamental nucleus of Ignatian spirituality consists in uniting the love for God with love for the hierarchical Church."

We can only hope and pray that the Jesuits take this to heart. They have much potential, and I think it would be a boon for their order to no longer be the butt of jokes.

Married Priests not necessarily the solution

A Ukranian Bishop, where married clergy are common, said recently that admitting married men into the clerical state is not guaranteed to solve any vocations crisis, nor will it improve the quality of priests.

"Abolishing celibacy is not a solution in itself," he said. "The quality of the priest does not depend on whether or not he is married. This has been our experience, and I think people are wrong if they think the vocations problem can be resolved by ordaining married persons. It will not ensure a large number of vocations.
I come from a priestly family," he said.

"My grandfather was a priest, and other members of the family were priests; some were married, others were not.
If a person is good, he will be a good priest, and this does not depend on the fact that he is married," Cardinal Husar said.

(Full Article)
This is some wisdom that I wish more Catholics would realize. I'm still a bit undecided whether priestly ordination should be allowed to be conferred on married men in the Roman Rite. It might be beneficial in some ways, and it would be detrimental in some ways. But, there is no reason why it would solve all our priestly problems.

More Gay Anglicans?

In a news story from Catholic Online, it turns out that the US Episcopal Church has quite a few other partnered gay bishops, the only difference is that Gene Robinson is quite open about it.

NEW YORK (LifeSiteNews.com) - The head of the Episcopal Church in the United States, Bishop Jefferts Schori, shocked listeners of a BBC Interview when she announced that Gene Robinson - the controversial Episcopalian bishop who was consecrated bishop despite his being an openly practicing homosexual - is not the only homosexual and partnered bishop in the Anglican Church.

"[Robinson] is certainly not alone in being a gay bishop," Schori said in response to a question from her interviewer. "He is certainly not alone in being a gay partnered bishop. He is alone in being the only gay partnered bishop who's open about that status."

The interviewer then asked Schori whether she meant that Robinson was not the only gay, partnered bishop in the Episcopalian Church. She responded, "Within our own church and within the Anglican Communion as a whole."

I can bet she's not referring to those other bishops who voted to break away from the US Episcopal Church. Or maybe she is. After all, I know my younger siblings like to call things they don't like as "gay", so maybe she meant that a lot of those other bishops are gay in that sense.

This, of course, comes on the heels of the upcoming conference of the worldwide Anglicans. What this says is that the US Church basically wants to openly flaunt traditional morality, which the Communion wants to uphold. "See, our bishops are practicing gays, so it must be okay, right?"

A number of the bishops who have called the so-called Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFC) have in the past suggested that the American Episcopalian Church should not be invited to the Lambeth conference, due to its decision to consecrate Robinson bishop, and a general movement on the part of the Episcopalian Church to accept and bless homosexual behavior.

Schori said that this idea felt to her "much like declining an invitation to a dinner party because somebody I don't like might be there. My understanding of the planned program for the Lambeth Conference is one that has the possibility of letting people build relationships. I think that's a remarkable gift. I think it would be very sad to go there and simply spend all our time consumed by legislation and I don't think that's what's planned."

I guess you have to expect this when your spokesbishop is of the fairer gender. (This is where I get myself in trouble) The bishops are meeting to hold together the disintegrating Anglican Communion, and she wants to build relationships. Maybe if those bishops spent less time "building relationships" and more time protecting the fidelity of their faith, we wouldn't be in this state at all.

When pressed by the BBC interviewer as to whether or not Schori supported those bishops and priests who were blessing homosexual couples despite pressure from Canterbury to cease all such ceremonies, Schori side-stepped the question, answering, "That's not a matter for me to say yea or nay, it's a matter of pastoral practice in individual congregations, in the same way that I don't enter into decisions about whether or not it's appropriate to bless a fleet of battleships going off to war."

Schori also seemed to suggest that support for homosexual behavior was consonant with the traditional position, the "roots" of the Anglican Church, saying, "My hope is that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole might remember our roots, our traditional valuing of diversity and our traditional sense that worshiping together despite differing views is what holds us together."

Is this as laughable to you as it is to me? Isn't she the equivalent of the Bishop-Primate. Doesn't that make it a matter of her to say yea or nay? Isn't the point of the communion the fact that the Faith is not up to the individual congregations? Maybe I missed the point of even having bishop(ess)es.

Also, where in the "roots" of the Anglican Church were there diversity and gay marriage? Time for a history lesson. The Anglican Church started in England when the King wanted an annulment, and didn't get one from Rome. They were made up of Englanders, and kept out Catholics. In fact, they persecuted them. There was no "worshiping together despite differing views." You never heard an Anglican say "I don't care that you think the Pope has primacy, let's break bread together."

Maybe this is just another sign that the Anglicans are going to implode. The traditional ones no longer have much reason to be anything but Catholic, and we'll take them. Traditional Christianity is just what the Church in America needs. The goofy ones can stay whatever they are.