The only caveat I would add is that when scapegoating succeeds , the organization can MOVE ON, feel empowered, and sometimes the issue at hand gets lost in the frenzy that is created. The issue itself often becomes but a dust mite in the dust heap of history. I agree that sometimes the innocents are eventually recognized and even sainted as was Joan of Arc, but this is not always or even usually the case.

In the matter of the Communion, I do not think it will survive well the rendering of its limbs. So far it seems to have lost its hearing and sight in the process.

Sharon Moon, La Plata, USA

The divide among the church and different sects and school of thoughts in christanity is as old as hills. Why blame Episcopal or any other, and make them scape goats. All such delicate and sensitive issues like gay, lesbianism, homosexuality etc. were the bone of contention and a rift amongs the hardliners and "liberals." I personally feel that religion is a very private affair of every individual and let us not compartmentalise the schisms into Anglicans, Pro Americans, Catholics,Protestants and Episcopals or other orthodox or Neo religious creeds .To me and many other like minded so, a church is a church is a church, a holy altar of the Lord , the ultimate saviour of our humanity.The place is too sacrosant and holy to be branded . However this debate shall go on and on with as many pro voices and dissents. Over the ages society has witnessed such ecclesiastical crises, the supremacy of church over state or vice versa. We are not here to exonerate or find faults.Divine shall rule.

Sandy, New Delhi, India

In the old Soviet Union those who refused to conform to state policies on religion, and attempted to practise Christianity were demonised as hooligans, and accused of all the violence and dishonesty that the state itself practised.

Why demonise the Christians for simply refusing to change their religion? Surely all this pretence that liberals are scapegoats is intended only to make Christians the scapegoat. All they are doing is merely resisting (not all that successfully) a determined, well-organised attack on their faith by groups who control most of the money, most of the institutions, and have initiated almost all of the law-suits.

Can't we just leave the Christians alone?

Roger Pearse, Ipswich, United Kingdom

Thank you Luis Rodriguez, Anglican priest, consellor and spiritual director...I wish you would add "spiritual consellor to the ABC" to you resume...he needs help figuring out what's going on....

Leonardo Ricardo, San Miguel, Central America

This article, while by my estimation is wrong in its analysis, does reveal the real reason for the split in the Anglican Communion. There is one group, generally called conservatives or sometimes fundamentalists by the media, whose primary allegiance is towards historically orthodox Christianity. And there is another group, generally called liberals by the media, whose primary loyalty is towards the liberal humanist values of the enlightenment. The coming schism is due to the battle for authority in the communion between those two groups.

Nicholas, Melbourne, Australia

This present division was already present in the first century of Anglican autonomy, when the Puritan faction began its attempt to establish a monopoly of truth. They rejected the humanist tradition of both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Central to the humanist tradition was, and is, reverence toward human knowledge combined with acknowledgement of its imperfection. The humanists depended on the constant nearness of our Lord and God to lead them forward. The Puritan countered with a conviction that God was so far beyond human comprehension that men could make no sense of His ways. The Puritan relied solely on obedience to His Word as found in the Bible. Attempts to perceive deeper meaning behind its complex passages were rejected as blasphemy. Thus today's Puritan cannot combine the new insight that homosexual activity can be natural with Biblical teachings about heterosexual life and conclude that gay and lesbian unions can be blessed.

Anne G. Lynch, Edmond, Oklahoma, U.S.A.

The foregoing comment supports Fr. Rodriguez' contention that the views held by opposing sides in the current Anglican dispute are irreconcilable, as does my own opinion to the contrary. The question then is whether we can remain in communion with other Anglicans whose understanding of God is different from and irreconcilable with ours, as we have seemed able to do in the past, or whether we must split into totally separate and antagonistic camps, defined by adherence to a theological purity code (i.e., an "Anglican covenant").

I think most of us on the liberal/progressive side would support the first alternative, while most of those on the conservative side would insist on the second. It only takes one partner to initiate a divorce; the efforts of both parties are required to make the marriage survive. It therefore appears that a fracture of the Anglican Communion is inevitable. I too despair.

Les Clute, Newport News, Virginia USA

Well, if that's not wishful thinking I don't know what is. There is no attempt here to ask how the word of God informs what it is to be a human being. Instead our faith is to reflect the latest pseudo scientific theory or sociological fashion. I despair.

gerard, glasgow,