August 18, 2004
ALL SLOPES ARE SLIPPERY (via Fred Jacobsen):
Episcopal priest quits before 4th marriage (Don Lattin, August 18, 2004, SF Chronicle)
Bishop William Swing of San Francisco has his own policy on how many times priests in his Episcopal diocese can get divorced and still keep their clerical collars.Three strikes, Swing says, and you're out -- if you want to remarry.
Enter the Rev. Richard Nelson Bolles, who's less known for being an Episcopal priest than he is for being the celebrated author of "What Color is Your Parachute?" the mega-selling book on changing careers during one's mid- life crisis.
On Sunday, the thrice-divorced Bolles will wed Marci Mendoza in a ceremony in the garden of his home in Alamo, the upscale bedroom community nestled in the shadow of Mt. Diablo.
Bolles, 77, says he has decided to renounce his ordination, and has been praying for a quiet weekend wedding.
Enter the Rev. Robert Warren Cromey, a retired Episcopal priest who is not known for keeping things quiet. [...]
Cromey, the former rector of Trinity Episcopal Church in San Francisco, says the bigger issue is Swing's three-strikes policy.
"There is nothing in the canons of the church or state law that punishes people who divorce more than three times,'' he said. "There is no evidence anywhere that three divorces are the result of character defects.''
Swing says he can't believe he's being portrayed as an ogre for limiting his priests to three divorces.
"In some dioceses,'' Swing said, "you're out as a priest if you have one divorce."
If you're going to let them marry you certainly shouldn't let them divorce. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 18, 2004 11:50 PM
"There is no evidence anywhere that three divorces are the result of character defects.''
Quite true and quite irrelevant.
Posted by: Peter B at August 19, 2004 10:28 AMof course it's evidence of a character defect
Posted by: oj at August 19, 2004 10:32 AMAt the very least, three divorces implies you are lousy at choosing partners, whatever else may be inferred from it. A somewhat more damaging inference is that the Rev. Boles may have contributed to the divorces, unless he is prepared to argue it was all the fault of his partners.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at August 19, 2004 10:43 AM"Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me." But what about that third time?
Posted by: jim hamlen at August 19, 2004 12:06 PMOrrin:
Ok, I'll retreat just a bit in the case of a clergyman who has had three kicks at the can. But failure and character defect are not the same thing. Someone who fails at a business or career doesn't necessarily have what most would call a character defect in the moral sense of the term.
We know that the children of divorce and those raised by single parents are much more likely to divorce. Is that because they have character defects?
Posted by: Peter B at August 19, 2004 12:14 PMPeter:
He made a vow before God, no? Oath-breaking is a character defect. Yes, children of divorce are more likely to have character defects, which is why divorce should be forbidden until the children are adults.
Posted by: oj at August 19, 2004 1:30 PMThat is a very nuanced view by the bishop.
We secularists certainly must bow before the moral clarity offered by the religionists.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 19, 2004 1:44 PMOrrin:
Well, the Catholic position is that marriage is a vocation. Surely the definition of a vocation belies the idea that not having it is a character defect. The notion that everybody of strong or righteous character should have no trouble making his or her marriage succeed is a little problematic in an age where his or her partner is free to bolt without sanction, and often does. I think I would be more comfortable with your argument if we talked about the collective character of the couple.
But I surrender on your oath argument for a clergyman.
Posted by: Peter B at August 19, 2004 2:43 PMHarry: He's an Episcopalian bishop.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 19, 2004 3:34 PMPeter:
Why must the marriage be a success for the couple in order for them to be held to their vows?
Posted by: oj at August 19, 2004 4:26 PMOJ:
Based on that, a woman has to stick with a guy who is beating the crap out of her until she's dead.
"Until death do us part" is satisfied, but that would seem a self-destructive course of action that has little to recommend it, considering we are Ordained.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at August 20, 2004 12:08 PMHeresy hunt! Heresy hunt!
Free entertainment for us.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 20, 2004 3:11 PM