Katherine Hancock Ragsdale (born c. 1959) is an American Episcopal priest based in Massachusetts and former president and dean of Episcopal Divinity School. Before becoming dean she was director of Political Research Associates from May 2005 through June 2009. Since September 2018, she has been Interim President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation. She is an American progressive, and was a priest at St. David's Episcopal Church in Pepperell, part of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts. Ragsdale has served for 17 years on the national board of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. She is also on the board of NARAL Pro-Choice America, The White House Project, the Progressive Religious Partnership, as well as the bi-national advisory board of the Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence. She presented to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in 2004. She was named president and dean of Episcopal Divinity School on July 1, 2009. Her appointment was criticized by religious conservatives, including Anglicans, who have been particularly critical of her endorsement of the "blessing" of abortion. She is the editor of Boundary Wars: Intimacy and Distance in Healing Relationships and the author of numerous articles, including The Role of Religious Institutions in Responding to the Domestic Violence Crisis and Hannah, a short story. She contributed an essay titled "Not by Outrage Alone" to the 2008 anthology Dispatches from the Religious Left: The Future of Faith and Politics in America She is openly lesbian. On January 1, 2011, she married the Rev. Mally Lloyd at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Boston. Bishop M. Thomas Shaw performed the ceremony. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Hancock_Ragsdale There has always been something of the pragmatic(or at least rather practical) about Anglicanism, which embraces the acknowledgement of the achievable. Some of this flavour may owe something of its origins to Erasmus and Thomas More, neither of whom were Anglicans. I understand quite clearly that I probably don't agree with Dean Ragsdale on very much, beyond the Nicene Creed, yet in a robust church we must allow room for opinions other than our own. Article 26 calls for a cleric to be deposed from Holy Orders once they have been found guilty by a magistrate of some heinous offence. Whilst I remain fundamentally opposed to abortion, I am also opposed to abortion being illegal which drives the practice underground, so young and often vulnerable women are then preyed upon by unlicensed practitioners, changing to much and engaging in unsafe medical practices with a wide range of undesirable consequences. Anglicanism calls us to be one in Christ, which is far more profound than being one in opinion. I do not hold a candle for Dean Ragsdale, however I also do not believe that when we disagree with someone we should be calling for them to be deposed from Holy Orders. As Anglicans we are not Donantists. We are a part of Augustine's Church with a good measure of Augustine's Theology - and yes I know that is why many do not understand us.
I don’t see how this comports with our tradition at all... we have always had the star chambers, the courts of high commission, the heresy trials, and ecclesiastical courts... Tour Church of Australia even to this day has ecclesiastical courts, even as our Episcopal Church does here (believe it or not), except that you don’t exercise them any longer to purge evil from the body of the Church as in the days past... horrible shame, incompatible with our whole history
Article XXVI Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed. This is the only time to word deposed is used in the 39 Articles. The use of Courts Ecclesiastical makes a great deal of sense in an Established Church where they carry the weight of law, and are part of the complex relationship between Church and State. The authority they hold in those circumstances is vastly different to the authority they hold in an environment of secular pluralism where no church is established. In that case they hold little perceived authority beyond the organisation. My view is that at times they have been misused to suit the wishes various power groups. At law the church is perceived as a body of like minded individuals, which is vastly removed from our understanding or the ordered community of faith, a sign of God's presence in the world. My view is that if someone holds the view that Dean Raglass should be understood to be a evil minister, they should take it, in the first instance with Dean Raglass, and in the second instance with the Bishop whose license she holds and thence to whatever appropriate course is available if they remain unsatisfied. That is how I see it comports.
The 39 Articles are not the only primary sources on the Anglican tradition! But you don't actually care about what perceived authority they exert "beyond the organization" ... do you? Our Lord has taught us to disregard, indeed to mock the World and its principles and attractions (such as secular prestige and vain popularity) We have been taught, by our Lord and by the successive heroic examples of the Church, and especially the Anglican Church throughout her centuries, and on different continents and among different Provinces, that the surest way to keep the heretics out of the bosom of the Church is to expel them, and to maintain an institutional faithfulness to our Lord Jesus This is indeed what Saint Paul teaches us: at first to caution a heretic in private, then if he doesn't listen do it again in the presence of multiple people, then to caution him by the whole Church assembled; and finally to expel him from the Church altogether... That to me is muscular apostolic Christianity, and we Anglicans have always been faithful to that
I was not making that assertion. This looks like a question and sounds like an accusation. The reality is that was not a point I made, nor would make. There is a tendency in contemporary debate to employ demonisation and vilification as it is a whole lot easier the discussing the issues. As a clergyperson Dean Ragsdale is in orders, and holds what I take to be a fairly senior and influential position in the Church. As such, as is the practice of the Anglican Church, she will hold an Episcopal licence for the role she holds, as well as being in orders. If her actions in fulfilling that role are problematic then the Bishop whose licence she holds should address that situation. She may in response and amend her ways, or argue her case, and between them work it out, or conclude it is an issue where that can accept some diverse views. If the matter rather than be resolved should rather be escalated, the Bishop may ultimately withdraw her licence. This is not the same as deposing a person from Holy Orders, which is most normally resolved in terms of Article 26. The other measure which you have now introduced to the thread is the matter of excommunication. I certainly am no specialist in this area, however for the most part this normally would be invoked only in the case of significant heresy. As I understand it in Anglican circles there is little in the way for canonical legislation covering this area.
You portray a calm and measured procedure of her being dealt with by her bishop, and just her license being at stake if anything... But! You would not have the same measured equanimity of mind if she were found out to be a pedophile or a serial killer, in which case you'd most certainly clamor for her to not only be stripped of her license, but positively kicked out of holy orders You see, it depends on the heinousness of the crime, and for Christians, this 'woman' if we can call her that is responsible for promoting mass murder of little children, and thus she is somewhere more heinous than just a pedophile, and approaching the rank of a serial killer
I am not sure that justice is served by mob or media. If she was found guilty by a magistrate of being a pedophile or a serial killer, then I think Article 26 provides the clear mandate to depose her from holy orders. Calm and measured procedures are likely to be more just than the fickleness of the crowd.
So pedophilia is still against the law (for now), but abortion already is fully legal... Are you using the government to inform you of what’s morally heinous within the walls of the Church? If the government passes a law permitting people to execute infants, or to execute gypsies and jews, then you wouldn't be very upset at a priest who cheerfully supported such a law?.....
Surely this Pietist principle cannot be said to extend to abortion. Abortion is inherently evil and I think it incompatible with the tenets of all theologically sound Christian denominations. Indeed even the doctrinal material used by the TEC, at least nominally, would prohibit it. This woman is a notorious evil liver in my opinion and should not even be allowed to receive communion in an Anglican church, let alone serve in an ordained ministry.
Actually it makes sense for the Church to make its own determinations about whether or not to retain someone accused of a crime. Thus the church could depose a priest who was acquitted of murder but who lost a wrongful death civil suit.
I take the point, and the truth is I am not entirely Erastian. Bonhoeffer and Hitler is a clear example. Abortion in Australia is not fully legal, and we certainly distinguish between early and late term abortions. Sorry I didn't take it as a pietist principal. I am guilty of understanding Joseph Fletcher, and I accept that the default position on abortion is no. None the less, then there are always the hard cases where the life of the mother is at risk, and I wonder about the morality of driving the practice underground and putting a woman's lives ate greater risk. I don't think it is easy, nor was meant to be. I know nothing really of this woman, and the case I was making was not in respect of the particular women. I have to say I find this problematical. Once the Church is disestablished, it's capacity to govern itself in these matters can too easily get washed up in politics. I know of three clergy all guilty of the same offence, one was deposed, one was sanctioned and moved to a new job, and one was made an archdeacon. If the church is to be responsible for this, I see that it needs to be beyond the diocesan level. I hope that makes my position clearer.