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

[Grace Cangialosi]

Two things, Sally:

I'm afraid I know of several cases in which bishops gave good recommendations for priests with obvious and serious problems as they handed them off to other dioceses. Obviously, that's speculation in this case, but there is precedent.

As to the question about a culture of alcohol in the Episcopal Church, you'd be hard put--at least in this diocese, to find a church-sponsored event (except, usually, the Sunday morning coffee hour) where alcohol wasn't served. The church where I served as music director several years ago, had had an open bar during coffee hour, and the rector provided Bloody Marys to the choir between services on Easter Sunday and mulled wine between services on Christmas Eve.
I've been at vestry and regional council meetings where alcohol was served and/or where members came to the meeting smelling of alcohol.
When I was training a parish discernment meeting, wine was served with the dinner before the training, and I had to ask that that not happen the next time the group met.
When I was still in seminary, they instituted a policy that whenever alcohol was served, there needed to be "equally attractive beverages" available.  Now VTS has an actual Pub in what used to be the small dining room set aside for meetings over meals.
I could go on and on, but I won't.

> On 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.
>>