Talk:Katharine Jefferts Schori

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
B This page is rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Anglicanism
Anglicanism Portal
Katharine Jefferts Schori 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:


Contents

[edit] Comments

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

[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)

Add to "Controversy" the padded resumé controversy - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jefferts+Schori+resume+Dean&btnG=Search -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.50.164 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 July 2007

The "padded resume" needs a more legit source then an anti-Schori website. I removed it until somebody can source it properly. The other "controversy" was a quote from an article that made no allegation that her comments were controversial. I removed it as it is WP:OR to assert her words were "controversial". -- SECisek 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree fully on the birth rate thing not belonging on this page. As for the padded resumé, the important sourcing here is the original document from the Nominating Committee of the Episcopal Church itself, found on the site of the Episcopal Church - http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/PB.Booklet.EnglishFinal.pdf . This is the most crucial material and evidence. As for the rest -It was David Virtue's virtueonline that "broke" the story written by Terry Ward - so here it is the "primary source," also referred to by other articles, since it the breaking story and the article covering the investigation itself. It is not controvesial, since I have looked, and haven't seen it contested, and it is very much verifyable. The article goes at length to verify its claims with appropriate documentation, as an investigation should. Leaving out a reference of Ward's work would also deprive Ms. Schori her opportunity for a rebuttal, since her discussion here with Ward is the only place she refers to it. The information here could also be sourced from one of the delegates to the 2006 convention, who seems to regret that delegates didn't check their facts first - http://generalconvention2006.blogspot.com/2006/08/we-did-remember-to-check-her.html - but this article points to an article on Worldnetdaily, which then goes back to Terry Ward's story on VirtueOnline. Normally I would want to cite a source that doesn't engage in the rather heated rhetoric common to Virtue's more editorial pieces, but here, he got the story. VirtueOnline is frequently critical of Schori, but isn't merely an "anti-Schori" site, and is cited by religion publishers like the Christian Post. His site has also been listed on the Wikipedia page for the General Convention as an external source, for more than a year now. But I agree - if I had the choice between citing a different site and this, I would have done so - but DV "got" this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmc41 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

...And they seem to be among the only sources to have "got" this one. A quick google search showed that this "controversy" is discussed in blogs, opinion pages, and privately owned-non-NPOV editorial sources, but the "controversy" has not been mentioned in any respected news source (BBC, AP, New York Times, etc.) What is more the chain of reporting that does exist is, by your own admission, rather incestious. All reporting sources trace back to the editorial by Terry Ward.

This isn't exactly breaking news anymore, and yet it does not seem to have been picked up by the mainstream media. It is not a noteworthy controversy if it is not widely held to be controversial. The first citation shows what she stated it on her resume, but unless an accepted new source "gets" that it is controversial, the section should be removed.

Bios of living people are governed under strict rules here at Wikipedia, so I am going to remove the material again. Please do not construe this as the first salvo in an edit war. Let us continue the discussion here. Did this get picked up by ANY major news source? If it did, return the text and cite it. If it is a true controversy, there WILL be many better citaions than Virtue Online.

The bishop IS an extremely controversial figure. One need not reach to find easily cited examples of controversy worthy of inclusion. I do not feel this is an example worth of note, however. Best wishes and let us continue this discussion -- SECisek 16:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

She is indeed incredibly controversial, and this article is anything but neutral in its description of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevRL (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a wiki: feel free to change it. The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation from Church of England Newspaper article?

The following ungrammatical paragraph was recently added to the article, and then quickly removed.

Despite promises to work with conservatives and evangelicals within ECUSA, Jefferts Schori has made a number of unfortunate comments showing her distaste for those on the traditional side of the Church. Her attitude to those that don't agree with her interpretation of doctrine and scripture have recently been subjected to legal action from the Bishop. She said that members who disagreed needed to 'be treated like child abusers'<ref> Church of England Newspaper No.5906 - 25 January 2008 </ref>

Does the citation hold up? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a few searches. It turns out to be a lengthy Jan 16 interview with the bishop for the wire service, Religion News Service. USA Today also took it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-01-20-episcopal-schori_N.htm. It doesn't say exactly what is said above, but I am sure someone can use the RNS piece as a source for updating the Wikipedia article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How can an attitude be subjected to legal action? *confused* The Wednesday Island (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing :). It seems that secessionist clergy/parishes have been the subject of legal action. --91.84.123.1 (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Good Samaritan School of Theology"

I made, then undid, a change to the statement that Schori was "Dean of the Good Samaritan School of Theology". I removed the change because I belatedly noticed there had already been discussion of the issue, and the source I cited was deemed not reliable. I agree that the article should not say there is a "controversy," because there really isn't much of one. Nevertheless it seems wrong that the article states that Schori was "Dean" of this "School," when there is zero evidence that any institution by that name ever existed. Just do a web search on it - there are no references to it that provide any info at all apart from the claim that Schori was once its Dean. Several bloggers have remarked on this, and no one has ever seriously contested the claim that the school simply does not exist. I think a reasonably neutral way of qualifying the statement should be found, but I'm not sure how to do it. Mrhsj (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

After some consideration I tried the following:

She is described in church documents as having been dean of the "Good Samaritan School of Theology" there(ref to ENS) (it is unclear what this refers to; no school by that name appears in major directories of theological schools(refs to two directories)).

I think the absence of that school name from major directories is reasonable grounds for an assertion that there is some uncertainty about what the name refers to; readers can draw their own conclusions from there. Mrhsj (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)