Talk:Katharine Jefferts Schori

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Comments to be added to Women as theological figures (and a better redirect from katharine Schori. Jackiespeel 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism This article is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Raised a Roman Catholic?

This article says she was raised RC, something that definitely warrants inclusion in the biography. ekrub-ntyh talk 23:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noted this in my edit. I've found no reports as to when she was received into the Episcopal Church, however. Given the influx of "Romans" into the Episcopal Church (and the simultaneous "Crossing the Tiber" into the Roman Church by Episcopalians and Anglicans) this seems fitting. Ceremony1968 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
She said in an interview that her parents left the RC church for ECUSA when she was 8 or 9, so she would have been confirmed in the Episcopal church. I'm looking for a reference to that effect which can be cited.--Wine Guy 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Done.--Wine Guy 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of name

Does anyone know how Jefferts Schori pronounces her last name? Is it SHORE-EE or SCORE-EE? — Gareth Hughes 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is SHOR-ee, that pronunciation was used during yesterday's CNN live interview with the bishop. Inteviewer Kyra Phillips used SCOR-ee once, and then quickly corrected herself.-Wine Guy 18:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you: it's nice to know who we're talking about. — Gareth Hughes 18:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure she was truly Schori for her mistake. Carolynparrishfan 04:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consecrators and Succession

J. Neil Alexander was not one of the bishops who consecrated Katharine Jefferts Schori. The chief consecrator for Jefferts Schori was The Rt. Rev. Jerry Alban Lamb, Episcopal Bishop of Northern California. A reference for this can be found in http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_gc_2003_journal/hendersonville2001.pdf

In fact, Neil Alexander was only ordained and consecrated Bishop of Atlanta on July 7, 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Neil_Alexander). This was more than 3 months after the ordination and consecration of Jefferts Schori to be Bishop of Nevada.

Thanks for the Hendersonville reference. I thought something didn't seem right, but did not have a good reference to hand. I'll correct it presently.-Wine Guy 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. P.S. On the subject of the consecrators, I created the article for Bishop Irish last night. It's the first article I've started from scratch, so any feedback from more senior and experienced editors would be most welcome. I'll get started on the other two.--Wine Guy 22:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction on consecrators. The Morehouse publication of the Church Annual had Alexander down, and it struck me as odd due to the sequence of ordinations, but having had no further information to counter, I had put it down. Thanks for the correction.CJJDay 19:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Pardon my ignorance, but why on earth does aynone care that she is the 963rd bishop, let alone want to mark it with N.B. in bold letters? (I'm from the UK, and have generally considered obsession with 'who consecrated who' as a mark of schismatics and episcopi vagantes, not fully paid-up Anglican provinces.) Myopic Bookworm 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the articles on the historic episcopate and Apostolic Succession will help to answer your question. As a fully paid-up episcopalian, I would tend to disagree with your comments about the "obsession with 'who consecrated who'". The note very simply, in your own words, "present(s) factual information in a(n)... unbiased way." As for the N.B., it is a style that has been adopted on several bishops' pages.--Wine Guy 20:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
They don't really help much, since I'm quite familiar with the doctrinal issue. I think it may be an establishment thing: episcopal succession in England is so ingrained that until recently no one would ever have bothered to question the consecration of any Church of England bishop, whereas the US is full of small Anglican-type churches whose origins are not entirely obvious, and which are not all in communion with each other or Canterbury. This situation in the UK may change, though: opponents of women's ordination do worry about whether their succession could be compromised, and no doubt this will become more of an issue (and possibly a formal schism) if the C of E proceeds to consecrate women bishops. As for N.B., even if it's used elsewhere then my question still stands: does this (to me) pointed use of emphasis not compromise the plain, neutral presentation of the facts? Myopic Bookworm 10:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
THe point of the N.B. was not to offer point of view, rather I made it bold arbitrarilly. Feel free to turn it to a non-bolded NB. For crying out loud, it's not that big of a deal. THUS the "NB" rather than bolding the whole fact. Being a NB meant hey "oh by the way". If there is a better term than NB to show this, than I'm sure you can change all the bishops pages to a less offensive "pointed use of emphasis" that is a more neutral presentation of the facts.
It probably isn't *so* important whether she is the 963d or 959th bishop of ECUSA. Some people just happen to like such details. Bishop Pierre Whalon told me while visiting my parish that Franklin Turner (Suffragan of Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania, who confirmed me) had a vanity license plate with BP and then his number. Whalon knew his number too, but did not think it necessary to put it on his license plate (I'm not sure if he has a car registered in Paris.). I think the N.B. being there and being in bold is probably not necessary, but I think it is useful to mention it where known.--Bhuck 14:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Bookworm, you make several good points. When I think back to my time in England, I can't think of one instance of discussion on 'who consecrated who', yet here in the U.S. I recall many such discussions going back to my childhood. It is food for thought, and you are right about this likely becoming an issue in the C of E. On the subject of the N.B., would it make more sense for the line to read: Bishop N. is the XXXth bishop consecrated... ?--Wine Guy 23:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you've made the change, I concur. I'll use that style for new bishop articles, and I'll change the others as I come accross them (if you haven't already). PAX. --Wine Guy 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WAIT Last I checked if we discuss something on this page, we need to finish the discussion before acting. The NB should not have been changed until the discussion was finished. It should be reverted back to the way it was. CJJDay 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I would have thought that after four days of silence on this relatively minor topic, that there was no more discussion to finish. But, let's beat this dead horse some more. The definition of N.B. or Nota Bene from The American Heritage Dictionary is:
abbr. NB Used to direct attention to something particularly important. ETYMOLOGY-Latin nota bene, note well-nota, singular imperative of notare, to note + bene, well.
Furthermore, the definition of the imperative verb form-Of, relating to, or constituting the mood that expresses a command.
So, in other words, whether in bold text or not N.B. says to the reader "You must take note of this!!", not "oh by the way" as you suggest was your intent. Therefore, I propose (again) that this line be changed to: "Bishop Jefferts Schori was the 963rd bishop consecrated in the Episcopal Church" without the unneccessary N.B.--Wine Guy 05:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Now, there have been four editors involved in this discussion; Myopic Bookworm, Bhuck, CJJDay, and myself. If I may, please allow me to summarize the views stated thus far by the participants of this thread:
  • Myopic Bookworm-Views are quite clear, as he has already made the proposed change once.
  • Bhuck-"I think the N.B. being there and being in bold is probably not necessary"
  • CJJDay-"If there is a better term than NB to show this, than I'm sure you can change all the bishops pages to a less offensive "pointed use of emphasis" that is a more neutral presentation of the facts." (from an unsigned post made by CJJDay 14:11, 24 June 2006)
  • Wine Guy-Need I say more?
How much more discussion and consensus do we need?--Wine Guy 06:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The use of N.B. (especially in bold type) is used to mark something really important that the reader has to take note of. Quite clearly, the content of this note is not noteworthy — "If you notice this notice, you'll notice this notce is not worth taking notice of". — Gareth Hughes 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I am incredulous that anyone considers this an issue requiring an edit war. Myopic Bookworm 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
However, starting from Uncle Sam, you can see that the order of consecration of bishops in the former colony is well noted. — Gareth Hughes 13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stance on homosexuality

It's my understanding that she recently said, in an interview, that she does not believe homosexuality is a sin. Being as this is a major point of controversy in most sects of Christianity, including the Anglican/Episcopelian church, I think this warrants inclusion. Unfortunately, I cannot find the interview where she talks about this. Can someone find this? - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status as stub article

Is this article really still a stub? She is a major figure, but still, there are several paragraphs here. ekrub-ntyh talk 03:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the stub designation.--Bhuck 14:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You're probably right, although IMHO there is more to be added, such as what she did while bishop of Nevada, her views on current issues, etc. Depending on what happens re: ECUSA v. Anglican Communion, she may turn out to be an even more historic figure than she is already. Hopefully this article will become more comprehensive.--Wine Guy 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
On a similar note, since the convention is now over, is this still a current event?--Wine Guy 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

Perhaps there ought to be a section about the controversy of her election, and, conversely, some of the strong support she has faced. Perhaps this should mention briefly the objection some have over the ordination of women as bishops (and esp. as a primate), including the dioceses that have taken action for alternative oversight (not just Fort Worth). Also, I've read a bit about a sermon she preached soon after her election in which she referred to "Mother Jesus," which hasn't pleased some -- I can hunt down the source of that. On the flip side, supporters have been numerous, and many have been wearing buttons to commemorate the election -- "It's a girl!" Since she may likely become the focus of much of the discussion between the ECUSA and the Anglican Communion at large (or at least a big part of it), and very well may be the a big part of whether the ECUSA stays in its present state, I think more should be added about this. Thoughts? --Meeples 06:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/t/Talk%7EKatharine_Jefferts_Schori_e7b8.html"