Always Jason

The Seattle Times published a profile on one of the most confused people I’ve every heard of. Ann Ann Redding is an Episcopal priest who has become a Muslim. Here is the strange part, she still claims to be a Christian.

“I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I’m both an American of African descent and a woman. I’m 100 percent both.”

Um, riiiiight. She doesn’t realize that her argument is a logical fallacy. Yes, one can be AoAD (American of African descent) and a woman because they aren’t mutually exclusive. But one can’t be 100 percent man and 100 percent woman, or 100 percent AoAD and 100 percent AoCD (American of Chinese Descent).

But what about those contradictions between being a Christian and a Muslim?

She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. “That’s something I’ll find a challenge the rest of my life,” she said.

Oh. The fact that Islam’s teachings are in direct opposition to the central tenet of Christianity is merely “a challenge.” How does she reconcile this?

“At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That’s all I need.”

She just declares they are compatible and it is so. When one ignores the reality of a situation, it becomes so much easier to live in ignorant bliss, doesn’t it?

But this isn’t the part that really gets me. I mean even the Catholic Church has its rogue priests. Have you ever run across a “Spirit of Vatican II” type? Whew! Looney!

But there are supposed to be checks on this sort of lunacy. Bishops in the Episcopal Church have authority over their priests. She can claim to be whatever she wants, but surely her local Bishop wouldn’t let her to remain a priest. Right?

Well, according to the Seattle Times, “the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.” He goes on to say that her announcement of being both a Christian (priest) and a Muslim hasn’t caused much controversy.

You gotta be kidding me! The Episcopal Church is in even more trouble than I thought.

(Hat tip: Powerline blog)

Roman Catholic Blog posted about the heartbreaking story of a 19-month old boy who died last week:

By Catholic News Service

AUSTIN, Texas (CNS) — Emilio Gonzales, a 19-month-old boy whose care became the focus of a debate over what constituted proportionate medical care, died May 19 at Children’s Hospital of Austin.

Emilio, who had been blind and deaf since birth, was admitted to the hospital Dec. 27 with a collapsed lung. He was also diagnosed with Leigh’s disease, an incurable disease which causes the central nervous system to break down.

Emilio’s mother, Catarina Gonzales, had obtained a restraining order forcing Children’s Hospital of Austin to keep her son on a respirator. He was on life support when he died. 

RCB claims in the post title that the doctors wanted to kill the baby. But it isn’t that easy. This child suffered from an incurrable disease of the central nervous system. Bishop Aymond of Austin even said that the extraordinary treatment that the parents demanded “will only result in greater pain for Emilio, without curing or improving the condition from which he suffers.”

I can understand family members not letting go. The loss of the child must be painful beyond words. Yet at some point, it becomes cruel to artificially extend the life of a terminally ill patient. It seems that little Emilio was beyond that point. Claiming that the doctors wanted to kill the baby is an uncharitable judgement.

May Emilio go with God. Amen.