4 thoughts on “Really-existing Anglicanism, take 2”

  1. At first glance I said to
    At first glance I said to myself Kalb or somebody was so fed-up, they found a way to doctor some photo by adding red clown noses. “Very cute way of making their point about that idiotic pew,” I thought.

    As unrelated musings went through my head, I continued to look blankly at the pic without seeing it or thinking about it, as I sipped the last of my tea. After maybe two minutes, I’d drunk the tea and my attention returned for an instant to the photo as I rose to leave for work—and suddenly—I don’t know why I hadn’t seen it—I realised it wasn’t doctored.

    Words—epithets—can’t express what I feel … can’t express the degradation of these sad, sick individuals, or the degeneracy of a society that countenances what they’re up to.

    I shall venture however to pronounce a word: homosexual. Is that—are the ilk of Bishop Spong—the root of this?

    Need we better proof than this photo that all which Andrew Sullivan stands for—his entire opium dream (which boils down, frankly, to his entire opus) of that perversion’s normalisation and incorporation in its open form somehow into the mainstream of society—is absolutely unworkable and wrong and we are doomed if we continue stumbling and staggering aimlessly in that fever-swamp instead of fighting our way out, and into the open air?

  2. An interesting point that
    An interesting point that hadn’t occurred to me. Spong and for that matter Browning are married-with-children (produced in the normal way), but the lack of seriousness, the mockery, the perverse playacting, do seem characteristically homosexual. So maybe an aspect of “inclusiveness” is adoption of the ethos.

  3. I know little about Spong.
    I know little about Spong. In the few writings of his which I’ve read, in the few public policy pronouncements which I’ve seen him and subordinates make, and in that long Firing Line interview he did all those years ago with Bill Buckley (which I never forgot, so bizarre—and, frankly, so sick—were the guy’s opinions), Spong has come as close to espousing the complete homosexual agenda as it is possible to come without being one. Nay, maybe he’s stepped over that line.

    I’d be quite surprised if it turned out Spong wasn’t a (closeted, perhaps?) homosexual.

  4. An historical materialist
    An historical materialist yes, a homosexual no. Originally (as I understand the matter from a Newark Episcopalian) he was opposed to active homosexuals as priests but then “grew” with the help of Louie Crew and others.


Leave a Comment