[Magdalen] Bishop Cook: Another unfortunate piece of the story

[Ginga Wilder]

Sally,
I was speaking of The Episcopal Church.  Having grown up an Episcopalian in
SC, and having my best friend's father removed as our parish priest for
galloping alcoholism, and having grown up with two alcoholic parents, I do
see a problem.  Here and in MD and now with PB's allowing the consecration
of a drunk candidate to proceed, in TEC.  (My best friend's father passed
out at the altar while celebrating an 8 AM Sunday service.  He was sent to
another parish.  Eventually he was defrocked.)

I know nothing of the drinking habits in South Africa.  I don't think I
commented on any entity besides TEC when I wrote my other post.  I believe
what I said.  TEC has an alcohol problem.

Ginga

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Sally Davies <sally.davies at gmail.com> wrote:

> If you drive under the influence, you don't get to blame others for
> accidents. It alters the probabilities completely.
>
> I'm puzzled by the "we as a church have a problem with drink" idea. Is that
> only in the USA, or elsewhere in the Communion? I'm sure not here.
> Anglicans are less likely to be abstinent than other protestant church
> members but as a group not more likely to abuse, I'm sure of that.
>
> Perhaps because of the strong evangelical influence in this part of the
> world? And also that ideas of social responsibility attach to alcohol abuse
> in particular. The entire society has severe problems with alcohol
> abuse/dependency, so if Christians are involved with social ministry in a
> spirit of love and empowerment (as most churches are), you have to be
> sensitive to that.
>
> What I'm not hearing in all this, is more about the qualities that Bp Cook
> possessed which influenced others to overlook such an obvious disaster
> waiting to happen, despite presumably having at least SOME objectivity.
> Other than the speculation about wanting to make her someone else's problem
> which sounds exceptionally bleak.
>
> Sally D
>
> On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, Jim Handsfield <jhandsfield at att.net> wrote:
>
> > In addition, she apparently was texting at the time.
> >
> > Jim Handsfield
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > > On Feb 3, 2015, at 10:31 PM, Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Furthermore, she left the scene for some period of time, variously
> > > described as from twenty to forty-five minutes. That's inexcusable.
> > >
> > >> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> According to the police report--which, I believe was based on
> eyewitness
> > >> accounts--she swerved into the bike lane and hit him from behind. I
> > haven't
> > >> seen anything to refute that claim. And if she was texting, that would
> > be a
> > >> very likely consequence.
> > >>
> > >> On February 3, 2015, at 10:16 PM, "Mahoney, W. Michael" <
> > >> wmmah at stoneledge.net <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Ginga Wilder <gingawilder at gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>
> > >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>I
> > >>> and a young man is dead because she drove while drunk.
> > >>
> > >> Do we really know this to be true beyond any doubt?  Could it be that
> it
> > >> was the cyclist's fault, in part or entirely?
> > >>
> > >> One ought not drink and drive.  That's not the issue.  And by the
> > available
> > >> evidence, Bishop Cook ought not drink at all.  But that does not mean
> > that
> > >> she necessarily caused the accident.
> > >>
> > >> One reason not to drink and drive is that you will almost
> automatically
> > be
> > >> presumed to be the cause of any accident in which you are involved.
> > >>
> > >> It may be that the evidence is clear but I haven't seen it.
> > >>
> > >> Mike M.
> > >>
> >
>