Newsflash: Canon Gordon Reid is “cool”.

David Virtue is laying it out there, but if it’s news, there are a lot of ambiguities. It really sounds like the real news is that Father Reid was the victim of a tabloid journalist’s entrapment.

As a few commenters on the other site said, if the tabloid story is true, it would come as no surprise about St. Clement’s. As I had earlier written, there has been a wide diversity at the parish, and, if you don’t really know beforehand, you can be really surprised.

Where I distinguish myself from Virtue, though, is that a lot of this “news” was already read-between-the-lines about Clem’s—apparently for a long time–and I’m not sure it was right, fair, or Christian, for Dr. Virtue to spell it out like that, even though I see where he is coming from. If the guys there are not out on the prowl for other guys who are really just there for the services, then I don’t think that it’s fair to make whatever the situation had been with Father Reid (who I have never met) into an issue. As I said, I don’t think the rector of St. Clement’s could honestly minister to some in the congregation if he didn’t have a certain insight into, well, gay men issues.

As people who read the Philadelphia news and watch TV know, the Roman Catholic Church has had much more serious, actual legal problems, with bad things going on—not involving consenting adults. All that Virtue is reporting is that, according to yet someone else years and years ago, the Father Rector was hip in his private life. But for St. Clement’s, this should not be a surprise.

3 thoughts on “Newsflash: Canon Gordon Reid is “cool”.

  1. I only wish to say that the Virtue article starts off with a gross factual inaccuracy in asserting that St Clement’s is “already deeply embroiled in a lawsuit” (I’m assuming this hasn’t been corrected in the Virtue report since I last read it — I don’t care to read it again). There is no lawsuit. The previous vestry had indeed retained the services of an attorney, running up an enormous legal bill that the parish now has to deal with. However, the present vestry immediately voted to dismiss the lawyer and terminate any pre-litigation processes being pursued by the previous vestry. There is, then, no litigation ongoing and no reason to expect that there will be any. Things in the parish are essentially stable, notwithstanding the efforts of a tiny, disaffected minority (some of whom may not even be regular/current parishioners or attendees there) to stir up trouble. It is from this unfortunate context of malicious shit-stirring by a very, very few that Virtue’s report at this time arises.

    1. Jeff, this is my read of that situation, too. Someone who had control (or a small group of people) got voted out of power, and now comes the sour grapes.

      From my personal analysis, the result of the March vestry election was long overdue, and these few people should respect democracy. One of them, in fact, had no problem subverting another person’s voting rights within the parish 20 years ago–even when that one vote would have, by no means, been the margin of victory in anything.

  2. glad to hear that someone else feels the same way about this “reporting.” i’m not a regular reader of virtue’s, and i was pretty overwhelmed that the only comments even remotely in favor of taking a step back and assessing the situation at large were dr ezell and you. kind of remeniscent of the present political absurdity in america today (of which both sides are guilty)–steadfastly defend your own ideaology at all costs while ignoring facts that don’t support your position.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s