|
S i d e b a r
MY RESPONSE TO BEING "EXCOMMUNICATED"
By Terrye Newkirk
|
|
|
|
Dear Peggy,
I just read that I have been (once again) barred from posting to Sister-L. I was just about to clarify my comment about "ending up like the Anglicans" and apologize to those offended. I sincerely regret hurting anyone's feelings. I was speaking of church polity only, certainly not about the sincerity and genuine holiness of individual Anglicans, many of whom I am fortunate to count as friends.
Would you please convey that message to the listmembers? It would have been nice to have been given the benefit of the doubt, and to have been allowed to respond directly; but once again Sister-L has proven itself highly intolerant of even the slightest misstep from an "outsider."
Now for the substance of your message.
(1) Last fall, I was put on "review" status, and none of my subsequent posts appeared on the list. You may say that technically I was not banned from Sister-L before, but the effect was the same.
(2) I have NO knowledge of what went on at This Rock between you and Karl Keating before I came here in mid-February. I have not read more than a handful of back issues of the magazine. Your implication that my presence on Sister-L was in any way related to your previous dealings with him is totally inaccurate.
(3) I did NOT resubscribe to Sister-L to create discomfort for anyone. I resubscribed after moving and regaining Internet access because I am in the process of exploring consecrated life-as I said when I first subscribed.
After subscribing, I didn't post at all for a while, and really had no intentions of posting much, given the lack of tolerance for dissent on the list. But then one day I saw something false being passed off as fact (I don't even remember now what it was), and I couldn't let it pass. Now I almost wish I had.
(4) For you to allege publicly that my presence on Sister-L is in any way a conspiracy between me and my colleagues at work is uncharitable, false, and amounts to libel. I expect a public retraction and apology.
(5) I have no intention of using your post (or any other post on the list) in the magazine. (The only exception would be if doing so becomes necessary to counter the misinformation you have now posted; you can obviate the need for that by your retraction and apology.)
However, you should be aware that posting on a public list constitutes publication, and portions of anything posted here may certainly be reproduced in other media under fair use guidelines. That is something I keep in mind with all my public posts, and I recommend others do, too.
My plan today was to clarify my "Anglicans" comment, then post a message to all that I felt the discussion was unproductive and that I would return to lurking. It is truly sad that I was not even afforded the opportunity to respond in this minimal way to the many posts addressed to me, including some that werefar more personally insulting than anything I have said. So much for dialogue.
Now you all can go back to talking amongst yourselves, untroubled by even a single plea for orthodoxy, obedience, and the integrity of the faith. If you think I need conversion, please pray for me; I spent a good part of the weekend praying for you all.
I'd appreciate having this entire message forwarded to the list. And I want to thank all of those who wrote to me privately expressing support for my willingness to speak against the "party line" on Sister-L. Now I understand why they feel they cannot.
Just one question: in this wonderful, loving, open "FutureChurch" y'all talk so much about, what will you do with the tens of millions of people like me, who are plenty happy with the Church of the Ages?
Terrye Newkirk
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
