Actually, for the ENS this isn’t a bad bit of reporting. I actually think the leghty quote from Jim Naughton is a good thing because its highly offensive and insulting characterization of ++Mouneer as a witless tool of some Western right wing conspiracy will probably leave a bad taste in the mouths of neutral readers and perhaps even some revisionists. After all, ++Mouneer is a saintly and gentle man of principle and I think all sides recognize that, even when they disagree with him.
Who is Jim Naughton that what he has to say to this should be important enough to quote? something major happens in the church, so you call …. a “journalist” for commentary? I find his words deeply offensive and shrill.
For such a bald statement … were there any such allegations made during Lambeth, or shortly afterward, about how ++Mouneer was being “handled?”
Allegations are, he was:
– “led around by British and American handlers at the Lambeth Conference”
– “read statements they had prepared for them”, and:
– [‘they’] prompted him when he “forgot his lines”
Guys, he’s just a threatened, anxious, and therefore angry man. I find none of his statements to be offensive, any more than I would be “offended” by a member of Al Quaeda calling me a “terrorist.”
You just have to laugh that off.
I love it when the likes of Naughton and Davis Mac Illaya and Mad Priest, et al forget themselves and mouth off.
Sarah, #6, I am tempted to join you in simply laughing off the intemperate comments of a single individual (although I would not go so far as to compare him, even by analogy, to al Qaeda). However, a review of the resumes of the [url=http://www.episcopalcafe.com/contributors/]contributors[/url] at “Episcopal Cafe” shows a number of people who are in responsible positions around ECUSA, and Naughton himself is an official on the staff of the Diocese of Washington (DC). This is more than the mutterings of a single blogger. The members of the group, if they have integrity, should insist that he either provide solid evidence for his assertions or withdraw them. This kind of thing tars them all with a very ugly coating.
I also suggest that we should concentrate more on Bishop Mouneer’s reasons given for his action, both in his letter and the Living Church interview. That’s what’s important here. Who’s running the Anglican Communion, and who should be?
#9. Naughton stepped down from his official position at DC Diocese. Reason claimed, I believe, was financial. Make of that what you will. His repeated screeds against ACI may be related–in addition to his generally intemperate manner–to the problems of passing around private emails, a matter that was brought to the attention of and evaluated by +Chane. At present, he runs the blog.
RE: “Naughton himself is an official on the staff of the Diocese of Washington (DC). . . . ”
Okay — even though he was, that and a cup of coffee would buy us . . . never mind. But goodness, if we were going to give credibility to all diocesan staff members, that’d be more than a thousand such! It’s not really a tiny, elite group.
RE: “The members of the group, if they have integrity, should insist that he either provide solid evidence for his assertions or withdraw them.”
The members of the group are of the same ilk. They don’t mind being thought of as Davis Mac Illaya, Mad Priest, and Naughton.
This is [i]who they are.[/i] Most of the time they try to hide that because it never pays to look . . . frothing and furious and out of control and threatened . . . but when they’re stressed it comes out.
Please note that I didn’t compare Naughton to a member of Al Quaeda. I merely compared [i]the import of his words[/i] to the import of a member of Al Quaeda’s words. They’re about the same in value.
I’m equally indifferent to the words of both parties. I could list others to whose words I’m indifferent but I think people already get the picture. ; > )
The Episcopravda article saw it fit to quote the malignant Jim Naughton:
[blockquote]Meanwhile, Jim Naughton, editor-in-chief of the Episcopal Café blog, said: “Anyone who watched Archbishop Anis be led around by British and American handlers at the Lambeth Conference, saw him read statements they had prepared for them, and watched them prompt him when he forgot his lines, knows that he does nothing without coordinating with the Western right. So what we’ve got here is a concerted effort to undermine not just the covenant process, but the quasi-governing structures of the Anglican Communion by a right-wing party that has begun to fear that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada will never be punished for treating gay and lesbian Christians like human beings.”[/blockquote]
I see ENS calls the ACC the chief policy-making body of the Anglican Communion. But that’s the question, isn’t it?
Actually, for the ENS this isn’t a bad bit of reporting. I actually think the leghty quote from Jim Naughton is a good thing because its highly offensive and insulting characterization of ++Mouneer as a witless tool of some Western right wing conspiracy will probably leave a bad taste in the mouths of neutral readers and perhaps even some revisionists. After all, ++Mouneer is a saintly and gentle man of principle and I think all sides recognize that, even when they disagree with him.
Who is Jim Naughton that what he has to say to this should be important enough to quote? something major happens in the church, so you call …. a “journalist” for commentary? I find his words deeply offensive and shrill.
For such a bald statement … were there any such allegations made during Lambeth, or shortly afterward, about how ++Mouneer was being “handled?”
Allegations are, he was:
– “led around by British and American handlers at the Lambeth Conference”
– “read statements they had prepared for them”, and:
– [‘they’] prompted him when he “forgot his lines”
Guys, he’s just a threatened, anxious, and therefore angry man. I find none of his statements to be offensive, any more than I would be “offended” by a member of Al Quaeda calling me a “terrorist.”
You just have to laugh that off.
I love it when the likes of Naughton and Davis Mac Illaya and Mad Priest, et al forget themselves and mouth off.
what a smallish man
Heh…Jim Naughton…difference maker in his own mind.
Intercessor
Sarah, #6, I am tempted to join you in simply laughing off the intemperate comments of a single individual (although I would not go so far as to compare him, even by analogy, to al Qaeda). However, a review of the resumes of the [url=http://www.episcopalcafe.com/contributors/]contributors[/url] at “Episcopal Cafe” shows a number of people who are in responsible positions around ECUSA, and Naughton himself is an official on the staff of the Diocese of Washington (DC). This is more than the mutterings of a single blogger. The members of the group, if they have integrity, should insist that he either provide solid evidence for his assertions or withdraw them. This kind of thing tars them all with a very ugly coating.
I also suggest that we should concentrate more on Bishop Mouneer’s reasons given for his action, both in his letter and the Living Church interview. That’s what’s important here. Who’s running the Anglican Communion, and who should be?
#9. Naughton stepped down from his official position at DC Diocese. Reason claimed, I believe, was financial. Make of that what you will. His repeated screeds against ACI may be related–in addition to his generally intemperate manner–to the problems of passing around private emails, a matter that was brought to the attention of and evaluated by +Chane. At present, he runs the blog.
Thanks for the correction, seitz #10. That change is not reflected on the blog listing as yet.
RE: “Naughton himself is an official on the staff of the Diocese of Washington (DC). . . . ”
Okay — even though he was, that and a cup of coffee would buy us . . . never mind. But goodness, if we were going to give credibility to all diocesan staff members, that’d be more than a thousand such! It’s not really a tiny, elite group.
RE: “The members of the group, if they have integrity, should insist that he either provide solid evidence for his assertions or withdraw them.”
The members of the group are of the same ilk. They don’t mind being thought of as Davis Mac Illaya, Mad Priest, and Naughton.
This is [i]who they are.[/i] Most of the time they try to hide that because it never pays to look . . . frothing and furious and out of control and threatened . . . but when they’re stressed it comes out.
Please note that I didn’t compare Naughton to a member of Al Quaeda. I merely compared [i]the import of his words[/i] to the import of a member of Al Quaeda’s words. They’re about the same in value.
I’m equally indifferent to the words of both parties. I could list others to whose words I’m indifferent but I think people already get the picture. ; > )