A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors


I Guess He Really Meant It

Ive been waiting to read that the newly-installed Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, has offered a warm and sincere apology to the Episcopal Bishop of San Francisco, Marc Andrus. But as of today, Im still waiting.Heres what happened, as far as published sources have revealed it. Andrus issued a letterto his own people, dated the first of October, stating that he looks forward to working with Cordileone on issues of common concern. He cited global development and immigration as especially pressing subjects on which they wouldjoin in makingcommon cause. He acknowledges their differences over Proposition 8 (gay marriage) and promises that his own stand will remain firm. In light of the obvious disquiet among some over Cordileones appointment, he reminds his people in closing to welcome as brothers and sisters any who might turn up on the doorstep of the Episcopal Church. I found his message charitable, sober, andhonest.Bishop Andrus had been invited to the installation, which was held on October 4 at 2:00. He was told that he must arrive by 1:45 in order to be seated. He arrived, by his own account, at 1:40, and waited, chatting with some Orthodox bishops. The Orthodoxwere led away, and he was told to remain waiting. Two oclock arrived and he was still waiting. It became evident to him that he was not going to be seated. He left. A spokesman for the Catholic Archdiocese claimed that Andrus arrived late, and was not seated so as to not disturb the ceremony. Andruss own account clearly denies this.The incident has been reported in the Huffington Post, CNN, the website of the Episcopal Church of San Francisco, US Catholic, NCR, and a number of news sources and blogs since that time. Conspicuous by its absence is any statement from Cordileone, clarifying the matter.Now, admittedly there were a lot of people at this event, and big events always include opportunities for underlings to flub things up. If the failure to seat Bishop Andrus was actually a snafu that happened at the installation,with no offenseintended, what would you expect to happen next? I would expect Cordileone to call up Andrus the very next day and say Im sorry; I regret this happened; please forgive this lapse of etiquette; it was all due to some confusion and truly it was not an intentional slight. I would then let the press know that we had made amends, and invite him to another public event soon, so that it could be seen that the Catholic leader of the Archdiocese of San Francisco respects leaders of other, long-established religious bodies. They are our dialogue partners and local collaborators in building the Kingdom, after all.But no. As of this writing there has been no word, no explanation from Cordileone. Nothing in the press or on anyone's blog that adds substantially to the story. In terms of the news cycle, that's a long time.Reluctantly, I am coming to believe that the slight must have been intentional.This is shameful, if so. Some have suggested that the letter Andrus wrote to the members of the Episcopal Church of his diocese caused offense to Cordileone and therefore it was right not to admit him. A more puerileargument can hardly be imagined. Andrus was an invited guest. He did not crash the party. If his letter was so egregious, he ought to have been asked not to come, rather than left standing at the door when he arrived.What sort of a leader has been appointed to the Catholic see of San Francisco? What sort of bishop cares so little for ecumenism and public relations that he would sit quiet while all this unfolds? On August 25, Cordileone was arrested in San Diego for driving under the influence of alcohol. He joked about it at his installation, in fact.A regrettable mistake he called it, and of course that is true. The incident with Bishop Andrus at the installation may go down in history as another instance of bad judgment.But there are also worse consequences imaginable here. It may be the beginning of the end of ecumenism in San Francisco. And that is more than regrettable.

About the Author

Rita Ferrone is the author of several books about liturgy, including Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium (Paulist Press).



Commenting Guidelines

  • All

You're right, Rita: even if it was a simple screwup, the failure to make any kind of amends is inexcusable. What would an apology cost? Surely nothing close to the potential cost of not apologizing.It seems like this happens over and over in the Catholic hierarchy: a bishop makes a mistake (or a member of his staff makes a mistake), and instead of simply admitting it -- saying something like "I'm sorry," "I reacted too quickly," "I misjudged the situation," or even "I can understand why people are upset, and I am working to make it right" -- he stands his ground and undermines his own credibility. I can think of several recent examples, and very few where a statement from the diocese actually struck the right note of humility and goodwill after the fact. There seems to be a widespread misconception that acknowledging false steps would undermine a bishop's authority. I would say the opposite is true.

I can't know whose side is telling the whole truth. However, if the Episcopal bishop felt not being seated by the start of the ceremony was payback from the archdiocese, he clearly recognizes that his letter's "backhanded welcome" was unbefitting. His own conscience made him walk out.

But then again, maybe the Episcopal bishop is purposefully blowing things out of proportion:

This is pretty entertaining as it is, but if they start anathematizing one another, I'll be in hog heaven.

Not to digress, but...It's been 33 days since a U.S. Catholic bishop was found guilty of failure to report possession of child pornography by one of his clerics.And he --- the bishop, that is --- is still in office!The "legacy" of JPII.Just like the new AB of San Francisco.Go figure.

"Puerile" is a good choice. The fact that this event is still noticeable five days later says as much about the people involved as the original happening, whatever it was.

Thomas, Sorry, but that Virtueonline report is extravagant and gives a completely distorted account. Read Bishop Andrus's own words. He doesn't sound "livid" to me. He is certainly not "spoiling for a fight." That's all made up. How can you recommend such irresponsible journalism?

I guess it depends on how one interprets things. Some people may have found Bishop Andrus' letter a little rude and insulting, while others just think it's polite and the restating that differences and disagreements exist.Likewise, some people think Vatican criticisms of the work of dissident theologians and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious are harsh and nasty while others think they are perfectly reasonable and corrective in tone.

Rita, I read Andrus' own words. I don't believe them. That's the problem with all the coverage of this incident -- everyone's reporting what Andrus said and not checking it out with anyone else, and they're laying the blame solely at the feet of Archbishop Cordileone. I think that by his silence it should be taken that the Archbishop believes the report of his people that they were waiting for an opportune moment to get Andrus up there and when they returned, he was gone. Why should the accusations of an Episcopal bishop be taken as gospel? Because it's character assassination against the Archbishop.

Is anyone able to find the entire press release that was issued by SF archdiocesan spokesperson, George Wesolek. In the link that Thomas provided, there was one thing that Wesolek was reported to have said that stood out to me: "He wants a fight." What I have read elsewhere, at a more reputable source -NCR- states that Wesolek actually said in this statement: "If he felt like because of the wait that was insulting to him, we certainly will apologize." ( Perhaps we can at least hope that Cordileone reached out and privately apologized to Andrus as this statement intimated might happen.

I am surprised so little was made of Cordileone's drunk driving arrest.

Here's a (traditionalist) Episcopalian site that outlines several plausible scenarios about what "really" happened in SF, some of them not very complimentary to Bishop Andrus.

I imagine that Eutyches and Eusebius, wherever they are, are clucking their tongues in impatience over the bloodlessness of this sort of fight. Kids these days...

Dan Cosacchi, I looked for the statement and couldn't find it, aside from what was in the NCR and AP reports. But that Virtue Online reporter claims to have spoken to Wesolek, the archdiocesan spokesperson ("'The procession was long, that's the key here,' Wesolek told VOL..."). If Wesolek really talked to them on the record, and if he really told them, regarding Andrus, "He wants a fight," that's an alarming indication of the bishop's office's priorities and approach to public relations.Let's assume the version of events that reflects best on everyone involved: Andrus's story is true; the archdiocese is also telling the truth; and somehow there was a communications screwup that resulted in Andrus being told the wrong arrival time, or misdirected when he arrived. It's still the case that Cordileone and his staff have failed to make the obvious goodwill apology that the situation calls for. Again, what is the cost to the archbishop of a public apology and gesture of friendship? What possible reason could there be not to offer one? You can be convinced Andrus is a publicity-seeking liar and still shake your head at how badly Cordileone has handled this situation.

Of mountains and molehills. I commend the Archbishop for not engaging lowering himself to engage in such a catty affair. Must be a slow news day in San Francisco.

From what I've read of the situation, I'm on Andrus' side. I read his letter and it wasn't insulting. But soon after it appeared, I saw some pretty huffy Catholic responses in the blogosphere, like at "First Thoughts". Then there was the ceremony in which he was stiffed. Then a sort of un-apology from one of Cordileone's minions, not Cordileone himself.What's not being mentioned muchm however, is the strangeness of Cordileone, one of the main suporters of Prop 8, being made archbishop of San Francisco, one of the most gay-friendly dioceses in the US. There has been a lot of concern about how things will change for places like Most Holy Redeemer Church, which does a lot of work with the gay community and people with AIDS ... San Franciscos New Archbishop Worries Gay Catholics

Could it be that this controversy is a textbook example of confirmation bias?"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position." ...from Wiki.

Mark Proska:The word catty is a pretty dismissive evaluation of a situation in which a religious leader is accused of lying and another seems to have washed his hands of the affair. But, I have more of a problem with Bishop Cordileones joke about his drunken driving arrest. I never heard anybody accuse God of putting persons in their place (aka, playing tricks on a person?) by causing them to be caught doing something illegal. The bishop did admit that he did not know if it is theologically correct to say that God makes himself known in this way. However, he is a spiritual leader, who is supposed to be teaching us how to form our consciences!

I guess Jesus took the wheel, Helen.

Abe Rosenzweig:Nah - Jesus wouldn't drink under the influence with his mother in the car.

If this incident is to "go down in history," as the post fears, and if it is to mark the beginning of the end of ecumenism in San Francisco, it's important to nail down the timeline as precisely as we can. To that end, here's another contribution from an Episcopalian site about this potential turning point in history:"Andrus states that he arrived in the correct place at the Cathedral at 1.40 p.m.while implying that he had to make his way around hordes of protesters between 1.30 and 1.40 [turns out that press reports indicate the gay activists were only able to muster some three dozen protesterspretty pathetic for San Francisco]. But 1.40 is rather late for a service in which he was to be seated processional style at the front of a massive building with more than 2000 attendees. Even a standard wedding service will seat the honored guests half an hour early. At the installation of an archbishop? Incredible to think that the honored guests were to be processed at 1.45."I didnt find an Order of Service for this installation, but a little googling turns up some other instances of processions for installations. Heres a description of the pre-events of the installation service for Archbishop Timothy Dolan. In it we find this, for a service starting at 2 p.m.:'At the April 15 Mass of Installation, a procession will begin at 1:30 p.m. with representatives of various groups, ministries and organizations of the archdiocese, as well as bishops, archbishops and cardinals. Cardinal Egan and Archbishop Dolan will be at the end of the procession.'

" causing them to be caught doing something illegal,"Helen,The Archbishop was simply applying the maxim that God/Divine Providence governs in the affairs of humankind, even the most illegal. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that a newly appointed Archbishop can get arrested without God's aid (to teach him a lesson)? I would imagine that is what the Archbishop was thinking, alluding to. It might not be your theology, but that's the Archbishop's faith which cannot be dishonest and which enters into the very depth of his conscience. Finally, I do agree with Mark Proska: it is "catty" -- almost as if Bishop Andrus feels he is getting the lesser share of attention in San Francisco. So he has to pounce on this to be more heeded in the media. Indeed, it must be a "slow news day in San Francisco."

Abp Cordileone is certainly off to a remarkable start.Joseph Jaglowicz: The event you mention has disappeared from the media, it is not to be seen anywhere on the diocesan website, and in fact Bp Finn's Lent 2007 pastoral letter on the dangers of pornography seems to also be absent from the page listing his letters and statements: the whole nightmare didn't really happen? Maybe if people don't talk about it, it'll just go away?In the meantime, right now that bishop has very little visibility on the website. He is keeping a very low profile. For example the invitation to a kickoff event for the year of faith comes from "the diocese", not from the bishop himself. The diocese might be effectively leader-less (which, come to think of it, might be better than the alternative!)

Two oclock arrived and he was still waiting. It became evident to him that he was not going to be seated. He left. He left. Of his own accord, by his own decision, he left. He wasn't turned away. He chose to leave. Even if he had been "dissed," his response was not to bear wrongs patiently, not to forgive, not to turn the other cheek, not to act with charity and presume that there had merely been some misunderstanding somewhere, but to turn his back and leave.

Correction:Abe Rosenzweig:Nah Jesus wouldnt drive under the influence with his mother in the car.

If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that a newly appointed Archbishop can get arrested without Gods aid (to teach him a lesson)? james chichetto,That explains the arrest. It doesn't explain the drunk driving. If I had a teenage son who was arrested for drunk driving and he joked about it, he would never get the car keys again. Tens of thousands of people a year are killed because of drink driving. It's no joke.

I'm with Abe (2:13pm). Remember the days of the Old Evangelization? The Eurozone ran red with blood for years over matters sometimes barely more important than this one. For a pro-lifer (ex officio) publicly to laugh off a DUI arrest suggests questionable values. The Archbishop begged forgiveness from family, friends, and co-workers but made no mention of the utter strangers driving along whose lives he may have been putting at risk. While the Archbishop was detained at the county jail, his mother took the car home. She hadn't been drinking and had a license. If only she had helped him out more at the installation, maybe the unfortunate contretemps under discussion might have been avoided.

There are a couple of problems with responding to this by saying that Andrus is just trying to make trouble and get attention for himself. One is that it fails to presume good faith on his part, which is a violation of charity. The other is that, despite great effort on the part of many internet commenters, Andrus's measured statements make it very hard to paint him as petulant and hysterical. He seems pretty in control of himself.But Patrick Malloy, for one, thinks it best to follow the example of some commenters elsewhere on the internet in not presuming good faith on the part of Andrus. Fine, then: let's say Andrus is lying, for some reason, about what he was told, and in fact it was his own lateness that caused the misunderstanding. Without any particular reason to believe it, let's just say that Andrus wants only to make the new RC bishop look bad and himself look persecuted. It is still the case that Cordileone can, and I would say obviously should, use this opportunity to extend a hand in friendship. It would cost him nothing and do much good. Why not do it?

Although I agree that an apology is probably warranted, I'm not much concerned about the impact on ecumenism. Ecumenism in San Francisco--as in most of the country I suspect--is sustained more by connections between congregations than by connections between bishops. It will survive this.

Patrick Malloy,The antipathy of traditionalist Episcopalians for their mainstream cousins is well known. Why do you quote their comments on this affair so glibly? Andrus reports what he was told to report no later than 1:45. If he was told this, whose fault is it? You seem convinced he is lying, and that the person on the traditionalist blog commenting behind a screen name is more trustworthy source. (Is it yourself, perhaps?) Bishops do lie, of course. But why should he lie about this? His story sounds plausible to me. One generally receives the program upon arrival, not in advance, and he was talking to people when he arrived, not reading the program.Guests at a wedding are much more likely to second-guess instructions about times and places than bishops are, because such events are rare. Bishops, on the other hand, are constantly going places as a guest of honor and appearing in processions. The secretary takes care of the schedule.

Peter Nixon,I am glad for your confidence in the future of ecumenism in San Francisco. I sincerely hope that Archbishop Cordileone, having started out on the wrong foot here in my estimation, does not continue in this way. Alas, bishops have been know to undermine the valuable work of congregations if they are not in sympathy with the project.

Mollie Wilson O'Reilly and Rita Ferrone - I nowhere said or implied that Bishop Andrus was lying.In my considered opinion there was a misunderstanding. It happens all the time. We have an anacronym for these incidents: SNAFU.It's not a turning point in history and there's no need to wax indignant.Just for the record, Rita Ferrone, I do not use a false screen name, though thanks for asking.

Mollie's point about public relations needs to be underlined."If Wesolek really talked to them on the record, and if he really told them, regarding Andrus, He wants a fight, thats an alarming indication of the bishops offices priorities and approach to public relations."This is maladroit and even unprofessional.

Andrus states that he spent some time before the installation began speaking to the Greek Metropolitan and some of his priests ..... if he was late, then so were they, but they were seated.

Helen--I agree, a certain amount of dismissiveness is conjured up by the word "catty." Which is precisely why I used it.

Crystal Watson, thanks for pointing out that the Episcopal bishop was chatting with some Orthodox bishops, the latter were led to the ceremony, and Andrus was left waiting. And not a peep from the SF chancery to alleviate any concerns, smooth feathers, etc.???Cordileone may be the official AB in The City, but his supposed leadership style, not to mention PR ability, are severely lacking. A fellow blogger recently noted (on a separate thread) two kinds of authority, and I looked up my old notes from a Management class I took many years ago. According to one source, there are 5 basic forms of power, ranging in effectiveness from Most to Least: referent (charismatic leader), expert, reward, coercive, and legitimate. Cordileone and guys like him may hold positions of legitimate leadership, but (as I used to note about managers who abused their authority) they would "lose coin" as a result of their behaviors. This is not good for any organization.Cordileone: another "legacy" of JPII.Sad.

The Mormon delegation got front seats and were not held in the basement. Take a look at retired A/B Quinn's pained pic in NCR. His 18 year reign held ecumenism as a high priority. I'll post 'the rest of the story' Friday when Catholic SF is published. Who will the Orthodox bishops who were 'on the spot' side with? It may be deja vu... all over again. Also "there is no slow news day in SF' as some have foolishly alleged . (-:

Helen, you're right to zero in on Mark's intentional use of the word "catty."It's a word he tends to like to employ to marginalize folks with whose views he disagrees. As we all know, the word tends to be gender-laden and quite specifically dismissive of females or males whom alpha males want to feminize.For previous discussions of Mark's use of the term, which illustrate that he knows perfectly well what he's doing in lobbing it into this conversation, see the following threads:

"It's no joke."David Nickol,Yes, the innocence of the intention abates nothing of his error of judgment. But God looks to our efforts, not to our successes. The Archbishop's intent and effort was to get his mother, the other cleric in the car, and himself home safely In redoubling his efforts to get them home safely, he under-estimated how much he had exceeded the legal limit (0.08%). Sincerity was in his power, but his judgment wasn't. He could count no success in that.I don't think he was joking about his error of judgment as about his elevation (to a high office) then descent into jail. Humor, a genial quality, is based on incongruity (i.e., a 600 pound woman waltzing in tiny high heels). What can be more incongruous (and humbling) than the Archbishop's senario?

Mark Proska, I understand drinking and driving and failing to apologize by the archbishop of San Francisco is a trivial matter to you. But I am reassured that you will not let that hold you back from your profound reverence for an unbridled free market and keep it constant on your adoration track.

james chichetto "The Archbishops intent and effort was to get his mother, the other cleric in the car, and himself home safely In redoubling his efforts to get them home safely, he under-estimated how much he had exceeded the legal limit (0.08%). Sincerity was in his power, but his judgment wasnt. He could count no success in that."How do you know that?"Humor, a genial quality, is based on incongruity (i.e., a 600 pound woman waltzing in tiny high heels). What can be more incongruous (and humbling) than the Archbishops senario?"What are you saying here? He was excusing his behavior (with humor?) and thus not taking responsibility for it.Would I go for Spiritual Direction to him? I don't think so.

Bill Mazzella--My dismissive reference was not to drunk driving, but to the hissy fit thrown by the "jilted" reverend, which I understood to be the main topic of this thread.

"don't think so."Helen,I am sure you wouldn't. You are obviously resentful of his humor. You think he makes light of his mistake. Maybe there is not enough repentance (coming from him) on account of the discrepancy between his mistake and the ideal behavior which is expected of a bishop elect (or of any citizen). Maybe you think he deceives himself? My reading is that the Archbishop hates the error of judgment, not merely the jail penalty, and, owing to his earlier comment (that God was humbling him), hates the mistake most because it has exposed to view God's chastising hand in the penalty. Should he joke about this? Someone once said, When a person has laid down her/his mistakes to the feet of God, she/he feels as though she had wings. Possibly the Archbishop's humor reflects his peace with the Lord, his repentance, giving him a "lift" (without literal wings) as well as a wachful eye. I hope so.

William Lindsey--Alpha male?

You might look for the "beginning of the end of ecumenism" a bit earlier, say, with the statement in Andrus' letter that "some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileones installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church."

Maybe Archbishop Niedermier said the same thing when Bishop Andrus was installed bishop.Maybe the former said: "Some Episcopalians may find themselves less at home with Andrus's installation and they may come to the Catholic Church." Did he?

Archbishop Cordileone's record on ecumenism according to his own P.R. office: visited Protestant minister Walter Hoye II who was jailed for trying to counsel pregnant women outside an abortion clinic.He signed the Manhattan Declaration in defense of the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty and calls Christians to hold to their convictions in those three areas. It was originally formulated and signed by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders.He worked closely with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the very successful East Bay Interfaith Blood Drive that this year expanded to most of Northern California. He worked closely with various faiths for justice for workers while auxiliary bishop in the Diocese of San Diego and in 2008 he allied with evangelical Protestant and Mormon leaders to pass the pro-marriage Proposition 8.I also note that he "is very attentive to the nuances of the liturgy as worship"...

Insofar as "ecumenism" means working with people of other faiths on matters of common priority, it does not seem to be a problem for him. He apparently is good at joining forces with those who agree with him, at least according to his own representative.

james chichetto;Someone once said, When a person has laid down her/his mistakes to the feet of God, she/he feels as though she had wings. Possibly the Archbishops humor reflects his peace with the Lord, his repentance, giving him a lift (without literal wings) as well as a wachful eye."Who may I ask is the "someone" that you are quoting?You are correct that I am resentful (?) of his humor. Archbishop Cordileone has a special responsibility to teach by word and action and he has failed. This is not a time for humor or excuses.

But if "ecumenism" includes dialogue to work out differences and work towards greater unity, as the Vatican has tried to do with the Lefebvrists and may be trying to do with the Orthodox, that's not for him.

"And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them. When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."Luke 14: 7-11 (KJV)

james chichetto10,228 people died in US motor vehicle crashes that involved an alcohol-impaired driver in 2010, nearly 30 people every day (CDC). If Cordileone had wanted to insert a little personal note about his arrest into his installation, a short, extremely serious statement about not driving while under the influence would have been very impressive. (Later, someone may be able to teach him the "designated driver" concept which many young drinkers learn.) Meanwhile, the state doesn't care about intention, noble motives, or God's view. The Archbishop represented a lethal threat to passengers and anyone else that got in his way, which is why he was separated from the car and detained. Nothing funny involved, whatever his state in life.

"...who is the someone that you are quoting?"Helen,I am quoting Eugenie de Guerin."...a special responsibility to teach by word and action...."The Archbishop is teaching by his capacity to deal with his mistake, to walk humbly under Divine Providence, and to acknowledge his vulnerability. He is full of imperfections (open to grace and repentance), not stuffed with perfection.Our opinions differ, Helen, but as our mind sets, so our opinions.

Ironically, the link that Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz provides above has a sidebar link "Ordinariate/ Anglo-Catholic" which reports on Episcopal parishes joining the Roman Catholic Church under the personal ordinariate.

"Andrus reports what he was told to report no later than 1:45. If he was told this, whose fault is it? "When I was a boy and we were all wearing sand dials on our wrists, the obvious possibility would have been that Bp. Andrus thought it was 1:40 but it was in fact a couple of minutes later, and the ushers thought it was 1:46 but in fact it was a couple of minutes earlier. It's amazing we all can just assume that the whole world is synchronized to within 5 minutes.Whatever the explanation, though, if the Archbishop's office wanted things to be smoothed over, they could have issued a "we don't know how it happened, but we regret the misunderstanding" kind of statement, but they didn't. In any case, now both sides can show how grownup behave by setting aside their hurt pride and moving forward on the many issues they agree on.

"Nothing funny involved...."Jack Barry,That might be. He could have caused an accident. Possibly the Archbishop will address the mistake in the future. Nevertheless, I can still understand the incongruity of it all and the admission that won't lessen the offense, make it any easier. I also think he will draw some advantage from his mistake, especially where he believes nothing can be accidental with God.

Geez, a Catholic snubs an Episcopalian? That's never happened in the history of the world. Didn't the Vatican refer to Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey as a "nice little layman" one time? Yet ABC Carey worked hard at inter-faith relations.Better to be the humiliated party than the one doing the humiliating, I say.I'm starting to find it ironic that so many of us on here feel that the bishops have entirely too much influence, yet their every move and faux pas is reported, effectively feeding the notion that whatever they do is of Great Importance.

I agree with Jean R. Being aged, I remember my eastern US roots where the Episcopalians lived in better neighborhoods with bigger houses, shinier cars, better tailored suits, and married prettier women.My guess is that chancery parvenues were just getting even.

Mollie wrote in part: There are a couple of problems with responding to this by saying that Andrus is just trying to make trouble and get attention for himself. I'm not quite sure what other goal Andrus might have in mind. Perhaps he thought this complaint was a way to get a introduction?

"Didnt the Vatican refer to Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey as a 'nice little layman' one time?"Jean, you don't need to remind us --- albeit, indirectly --- that Vaticanistas should avoid accusing Anglicans of not having valid ministerial orders.I mean, if we look at the ordination rituals in The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (ca. 150 - 350 AD), we will discover that the ordination of presbyter/elder includes NO REFERENCE to performance of liturgical presidership!!! Yet we know that presbyters led Christian/Catholic worship in the primitive churches. Rome wants us to believe --- lack of ministerial ordination in primitive communities notwithstanding --- that these ancestors in the Christian faith did receive the body and blood of Christ at their eucharistic liturgies! But how can this be? Even the emergence of Christian/Catholic priesthood was a historical development that was not part of earliest practice and belief.As high school sophomores might (still?) say, The truth hurts!But the Vatican will have none of it :-)

I am shocked by the bitchiness of the comment at 10/09/2012 - 8:45 pm IMO it should be withdrawn forthwith.

Robert George has a post on Mirror of Justice titled Inviting people in religion B to join religion A if they actually believe the teachings of A and don't believe the teachings of B the closing sentences of which are as follows:

That, it seems to me, is precisely what Pope Benedict did in establishing the ordinariate for Anglicans who wish to join the Catholic Church while retaining certain aspects of their Anglican heritage. Perhaps the San Francisco bishop could create a special community for Catholics in the city who wish to become Episcopalians, but who want to hang on to, I don't know, folk masses and Teilhard de Chardin reading groups.

Oh, Please! Good manners knows no religious boundary. Whether the Bishop did or did not arrive late, the proper protocol is for the Archbishop to apologize for not seating the Bishop, and agree to a nice San Francisco dinner soon.

Joseph, at a retreat not long after my so-called conversion where we were "sharing our faith journeys," I said I'd started as a Unitarian and was baptized as an Episcopalian in my mid 20s. One of my fellow retreatants congratulated me on getting out of "that fake church with its fake priests." I'm not sure why some Catholics can't at least see Protestant denominations as part of their own tradition, even if it is one that is, in some ways, incomplete. We all use the same creed.

Sister Mary, withdrawing the comment you referred to would raise it to the level of being worthy of notice. Some posts on here are like mild tinnitus--irritating at first but easily remedied by turning on some white noise and moving your attention to something more productive.

One of my fellow retreatants congratulated me on getting out of that fake church with its fake priests.Some Catholics claim that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice. But among many Catholics, anti-Episcopalianism is an acceptable prejudice.

I would be more offended at his theologizing that "God put him in his place" with hiw DUI event. He did that to himself!!! And he put his mother and another passenger at risk and others. Thee is no apparent contrition for that and to see it only through his eyes of being somehow "put in his place" or whatever demonstrates his complete narcissism. This is behavior that deserves sanction, not humor... I wonder how he will deal with priests who face simila circumstances.. "Laugh it off, Father..."As far as the Bp. Andrus affiar, it APPEARS, if reported accurattely that he was snubbed and the staffer knew it, but it's all strange. If so, Cordileone owes him a public apology. However, though I support ANdrus positions, I think his lettger was unecessarily and specifically too pointed. Just lay out a welcome and note tha on certain ssues we disagree and I know we will each hold to the integrity of our positions while we find common ground -- as we have in the past -- for collaboration.

Bruce wrote: Im not quite sure what other goal Andrus might have in mind.What I see here is that Andrus has learned the first and most important rule of public relations: "Tell your own story, or somebody else will tell it for you."Imagine what would happen if he left the installation and waited to see what the press made of the event. I can just see the headlines: "Episcopal Bishop walks out" "Insult to new Archbishop by Episcopal prelate" - or even that reports would say what was actually said by Archbishop Cordileone's press officer: "He arrived late" ergo it was his own fault that nobody seated him. So the "goal" might well have been to get on record what actually happened before other people started projecting what they thought might have happened. Whatever else you can say about this event, Andrus had the perfect motivation for telling his story before anybody else did, and it doesn't have to be a sinister motivation in the least. It's self-protection.

"...the bitchiness of the comment.":Sister Mary Wood,I think it was said in benign rivalry. Nothing among men is ever done kindly that is done in rivalship. I know, of course, you could clobber me with that kind of view, but it is an opinion out there. (But it is not "bitchiness," which is used as a strong term of contempt or hostility.)

In September 2010, Archbishop Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church told Anglicans quite clearly why ecumenical dialogue with today's Anglican communion was futile, and it had nothing to do with Archbishop Cordileone: Archbishop Hilarion noted, "The dialogue is doomed to closure if the unrestrained liberalization of Christian values continues in many communities of the Anglican world." Bishop Andrus' nasty letter concerning the appointment of Archbishop Cordileone is yet more proof of the truth of Hilarion's analysis.

Mark Proska: to reply to your comment at 8:45:Yes.

Surely those men pictured with Archbishop Cordileone are not bodyguards (certainly not members of the Secret Service) or are they?

"...bodyguards...or are they/"Helen,They could be bodyguards, giving the public what they want -- protection for the new Archbishop. But if someone wanted to attack him, he/she wouldn't wait for extrordinary circumstances to do so; he/she would try ordinary situations to make a nuisance.

Helen -- You're observant. The positioning, postures, lines of sight, hands free, and uniforms of the four hardly suggest social companions along for the stroll. Cordileone's reputation preceded him and aroused protest on arrival because of his vigorous efforts on Prop. 8.

To those here making light of the dui of the Archbishop, please note that for a bac (blood alcohol limit) of .08 the estimate is three drinks within one hour. The Archbishop's limit was over that so that he might have had four or five drinks per hour. At any rate three drinks is irresponsible while driving and people have been proven to have killed people driving at that bac.FYI the terms are different in New York. The terms DWI (driving while intoxicated) and DWAI (driving while ability impaired) are the terms used in NY. DWI applies to .08 and above. While DWAI points to .05 - .07.

Supposing that the men around the archbishop are bodyguards:Is this saying that the San Francisco police are not sufficient to control the crowd and protect the archbishop? Who is paying for this extra protection?Is this a one time or permanent state of affairs? Inquiring minds want to know.

From a story linked on Whispers in the Loggia six (6) days ago: San Francisco Archdiocese spokesman George Wesolek chalked it up to a misunderstanding. Andrus had arrived late and missed the procession of interfaith clergy who were to be seated up front. Church staff were looking for an opportunity to bring the bishop in without disrupting the service, according to Wesolek. When they went to retrieve him, he had already left."We had no intention of excluding him at all," Wesolek said. "If he felt like because of the wait that was insulting to him, we certainly will apologize."

If you're not out to assume the worst about people, this all seems like much ado about nothing.

Rita,Will you be including an update on your original post regarding the Associated Press article mentioned in the Whispers post linked by Stuart Buck? It includes an alternative explanation (that seems plausible enough) from the Archdiocese."As of this writing there has been no word, no explanation from Cordileone. Nothing in the press or on anyones blog that adds substantially to the story." Except of course one of the most widely read Catholic blogs and the AP . . . .Thanks,Edward

My apologies. I see now that the Archdiocese comment was mentioned in the post, although I think it's fair to say that the explanation from the Archdiocesan spokesperson is an "explanation from Cordileone."

I have discovered, next to my printer, an ancient Coptic fragment. It was entitled Genesis, Chapter 51. The date of 4004 BCE has been thoroughly authenticated by my friends.Here I will reveal only the relevant parts of the fragment: "If anyone feels he or she has been snubbed, immediately announce such a fact on the internet. The snubbor is then under the obligation to publicly apologize to any snubbees. If this encourages other snubbees to search their repressed memories and come forward to demand an apology, all the better. These apologies are in addition to and not in replacement of apologies for the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc."

James--Thanks for your support, but my guess is that "Sister Mary Wood" is just someone's idea of camp. I can't imagine a real Sister Mary would behave that way.William--In reply to your comment of 1:33 pm, I'm not terribly familiar with the term, but based on this: I can say is, I am not worthy.

Claire (10/09/2012 - 4:30 pm), Joseph J. -- TANGENT ----- Finn's pastoral letter promulgating his expertise on the dangers of pornography is still available today. I expected to see it disappear a year ago if he were wise. Maybe what he wrote was just for other people. Lesson for Cordileone: Make believe history never happened.

Jack: you're right. On the page which I linked to in my comment, his letter appears. But I could swear that it was not there when I looked for it yesterday!

Jack, thanks for the link.Stuart, ditto.That said, I'm now even more confused about the facts. Andrus supposedly arrived on time, indeed, to chat with an Orthodox bishop and fellow clerics before they were whisked off to join the procession to their designated seating. Andrus, however, was asked to remain behind.What gives?Did a cathedral aide screw up? Or did an aide intend to keep Andrus out of the procession? In any event, did Cordileone have anything to do with this episode? (I'd hope he did not.)Perhaps in addition to apologizing to Andrus, the archdiocese may want to inquire what happened out of sight of the folks upstairs in the assembly and share its findings with Andrus.This episode, whether intended or not, is not "much ado about nothing". Regardless of my generally negative feelings and thinking about Cordileone, I'd hate to see this matter derail good will and cooperation between the two churches in San Francisco.

Stuart Buck,We didn't need Rocco to tell us this. The same information was in the link I supplied in my original post. I see you regard Wesolek as the final word on what happened. That's your opinion. Andrus denies that he was late. Thank you, Edward, for noticing that it was in the original post.As noted, the problem is that statement "he arrived late." This is the point that the bishop contends is untrue. Edward, to pursue your point further:I do not know that the statement of the press officer ought to be taken as equal to a statement from Cordileone. He also said they would apologize if offense were taken. Quite evidently, offense was taken, but there has been no apology reported. And later, Wesolek said to Virtue Online that Andrus was looking for a fight. I'd really hate to attribute that comment to Cordileone. But maybe I'm wrong.

Ok, here's my reconstruction. Andrus arrived before his deadline. He chatted with the Orthodox guys. Someone - say, an usher - was sent to fetch them all to get them lined up for the procession of non-Catholic dignitaries. So the usher grabbed the Orthodox guys and stuck them in line. The usher was supposed to then go back and get Andrus - but he didn't. Why not? Probably because it was disorganized chaos, trying to get everybody where they were supposed to be - and in the midst of trying to keep track of 27 other things, the poor guy just forgot.Me, if I were overlooked that way, I'd just walk through the door at some other opportune moment. I'd approach an usher and whisper, "I was supposed to walk in with all those rabbis and imams, but somehow I got left behind. May I just walk up the side aisle and squeeze into the pew with them?"

I see you regard Wesolek as the final word on what happened.If we assume the principles of Occam's Razor and perhaps even a hermeneutic of charity, the most plausible possibility is that there was, at worst, a misunderstanding based on some sort of confusion as to what time the event started or perhaps due to someone's watch being slow. Any breach of ecumenism came first from Andrus's rather cheeky letter, which rather plainly was hinting that Catholics should leave (if anything would be a breach of ecumenism, that would).

Jim Pauwels:You wrote,

. . . [H]eres my reconstruction. Andrus arrived before his deadline. He chatted with the Orthodox guys. Someone say, an usher was sent to fetch them all to get them lined up for the procession of non-Catholic dignitaries. So the usher grabbed the Orthodox guys and stuck them in line. The usher was supposed to then go back and get Andrus . . .

Bishop Andrus says thats not how it happened. He says the usher had begun to grab all of them Andrus included:

An archdiocesan employee attempted to escort me upstairs with the Greek Orthodox group, but was stopped from doing so by the employee to whom I had first identified myself. This person, who appeared to be in a superior role, instructed another employee to stand with me.

Andrus said he had identified himself to that person an assistant to the archbishop, he says when he first arrived, and that the person then spoke to someone through a headset, saying, Bishop Andrus is here.The quotes from Andrus can be found at

Well, Rita, narratives turn into absolutes once they are ventilated like this. Of course, you asked for it. You took the bait to register what "actually" happened and whose "narrative" is the most "veritable," "determinate," "decided," "genuine," "categorical," "unequivocal," etc. Nothing like applying pliability and liberality, but restrained within ecumenical bounds, when two bishops square off!

Archbishop Cordileone has a special responsibility to teach by word and action and he has failed.Helen,On becoming an Archbishop, he did not receive some special ability not to make mistakes. How about a little charity? Also, perhaps he is teaching that after making a mistake, you can move on. With all our background checks, etc. we basically treat people no better than the worst thing they ever did. Thats terrible, IMHO.

Bruce -- In a local case I know, a stupid drinker/driver like Cordileone paid with significant time off the road, enforced without consideration of remorse, contrition, and the hand of God. He had time for meditation on the legal and lethal consequences of DUI before being allowed to drive again. ABC10NEWS found the car the Archbishop was driving "belongs to the church" and was "registered to Roman Catholic Bishops". Whose judgment determines when the Archbishop gets the keys again? His? That has been observed in action and reaction.

"...a stupid drinker/driver like Cordileone....Jack Barry,Wow, you really "like" the guy, don't you? One wonders how the Archbishop would write about you havng witnessed one of your mistakes, on TV. No doubt, it would not be "drunken driving." You protest too much about that. And now you want everything "intelligent" about Cordileone cancelled because of his single error. Thank heavens our saints are characterized by the greatness of their sins and mistakes as by the greatness of their efforts and achievements. I am sure all you dwell on is the greatness of their sins.

james chichetto Note the 2010 death toll in US motor vehicle crashes that involved an alcohol-impaired driver (10/09/2012 - 9:42 pm). Have you shared your charitable viewpoint with the children, spouses, family, and friends directly affected by those 10,228 violent deaths - or "mistakes", if you prefer?

Jack Berry,There are 900,000 DUI arrests each year and a third are repeat offenders. And I'm sure there are multiple times as many who are never caught. Its no wonder you have a local case you know.

I promised to post the 'rest of the story' on Episcopal Bishop Andrus being snubbed at the installation of Archbishop Cordileone San Francisco.There is 'no' rest of the story. The Catholic San Francisco newspaper today did not mention/apologize or remark about the snub. Maybe some think if it's ignored it did not happen?AD PR guy said Episcopals 'want to fight'. I guess if you don't show up in the ring there is no fight. . SF is very Small in area so these very young bishops have a decade or two to avoid an intermingle. So much for ecumenism on Vat II anniversary. was written up though.

I find it very difficult to believe that Cordileone's mother would let him drive the car if he were obviously impaired by the alcohol which he had imbibed with a full dinner. Nonetheless, I think it was bad form on both sides of the obviously competing denominations. Bishop Andrus did not need to state his well known opinion to his flock at this time, and Archbishop Cordileone should have disinvited Andrus if he later decided that he did not want him there because of the declaration of opposition. Bad form all the way around.

Verity -Agreed. I also think that it would be unlikely that Apb. Cordileone would drive his mother around if he himself thought he was drunk (even though he actually was). Granted, DUI is a very bad thing to do, but it isn't always possible for the one who has been drinking to know he's had too much. It's his laughing about it that gets to me.

"There is 'no' rest of the story. The Catholic San Francisco newspaper today did not mention/apologize or remark about the snub."SOP, apparently, for U.S. hierarchs.Like in KC-St Joe.Nada. Nothing.And dysfunctional leadership goes on.(only in the Church of Rome)Sad.

" would be unlikely that Apb. Cordileone would drive his mother around if he himself thought he was drunk...."Ann Olivier,True enough; but as it was, the Apb.'s mother had to drive herself home that evening after the arrest. The German cleric couldn't, without a license.

James C. --I hold no brief for Apb. Cordileone, but I don't think he should be painted as worse than he is. (I don't know what his mother's driving has to do with this. And I don't know which german cleric are you referring to.)

Ann O. -- USAToday(AP) reports in a 10/5 article headlined "SF prelate jokes about DUI charge at installation" that his mother and a visiting priest from Germany were with him in the car. Some less-than-main-stream media are talking about the priest but are not what I would consider tastefully quotable at present.

The above is liable to fade away soon, interesting though it may be, unless dramatic new information shows up. Unfair though it is, perceptions of Cordileone focus on one area (Cf. Law, Finn, Leahy (Can.), et al.) One conservative group described him as "Father of Proposition 8"; variations on the terminology are in wide use by supporters and detractors. An archdiocesan spokesman, George Wesolek, announced before the installation "We are going to be fully secure". Police were expected to disrupt any attempt to disrupt the ceremonies. Protests had been promised by gay activists, including the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. (The latter were raised to fame in 2007 when two received Holy Communion from Archbishop Niederauer.) Apparently, only a few dozen protesters were noticed at the actual installation, but gay activists have promised to go after the Archbishop as long as he is in office. When all is said and done, ecumenism in SF and the Andrus-Cordileone interaction are likely to matter relatively little, considering the extent and energy of the SF Church situation involving gay relations, including samesex marriage, in which the Archbishop is fully immersed on arrival.

Add new comment

You may login with your assigned e-mail address.
The password field is case sensitive.

Or log in with...

Add new comment