OK, what's going on here? Freud or no Freud?
Well, a Freudian slip, one supposes, or maybe it's true.
The Living Church said this today, "Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the other members of the joint steering committee of primates and the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) met late into the night Monday discussing language on the eight or so bullet points which might constitute an acceptable response from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the primates."
Are the "eight or so bullet points" meant to be those which might constitute "an acceptable response from" the ABC and the Primates, or "an acceptable response to the ABC and Primates?
The Joint Standing Committee (JSC) is a body the PB sits on and so it might make sense to be forming an acceptable response "from." In which case they are suggesting what the ABC and the primates ought to do in response to the (then) unwritten statement by the bishops. If that is the case then the PB in turn would, I suppose, take those to the bishops writing the statements coming forward this afternoon (Tuesday) and ask them to make sure what they do jibs with what the ABC and Primates might say. But the language "an acceptable response from" is odd. I would not think it was the role of the JSC to form an acceptable response from the ABC or the Primates. I didn't think they took directions that easily.
Perhaps it is a Freudian slip. Perhaps the issue is that they were working on eight or so bullet points that would constitute an "acceptable response to" the ABC and Primates. In this case the JSC is advising the bishops of The Episcopal Church on acceptable language. While this is a bit pushy, it is at least understandable. This way the bishops know what sorts of things are being looked for and why.
So, where is Freud when we need him? Probably smoking a cigar, which is (unlike most things in the Anglican Communion these days) often just a cigar.
OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Since Freud did not see homosexuality as an affliction: 'I am . . . of the firm conviction,' he famously wrote to the newspaper Die Zeit in 1905, 'that homosexuals must not be treated as sick people.' "ReplyDelete
In a letter Freud wrote to an American mother offering advice about her gay son. Freud's letter reads: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness."
I think Freud would not be amused if he were living in our day and time, but he would perceive some in the communion as having hysterical tendancies, and it is NOT the gays of whom I am speaking.....