An update

The Rev. Dr. Katherine Grieb has told numerous sources that she did not offer the characterizations attributed to her in a news feature of the Anglican Church of Canada. Specifically, she did not say that from the perspective of The Episcopal Church the present version of the Anglican Covenant is “that they could live with.”

As observed earlier in the week in The Lead, TEC’s perspective can only be articulated by the General Convention, which has said not a word about the final draft of the covenant. Executive Council hasn’t spoken in any kind of conclusive, or, for that matter, even suggestive sort of way on the matter, either.

Posted by
Category : The Lead

Comment Policy
Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted. We also ask that you limit your comments to no more than four comments per story per day.

  1. tgflux

    Thank you for this.

    JC Fisher

  2. Dä'ved Äyan

    Could someone please explain to this Mexican Anglican the hubaloo in the other thread regarding referring to her as the Reverend Grieb? We use similar honorifics in Spanish. What was so incorrect or gawdawful with that?

  3. Doug

    It took me a moment to get it, too, but I think her title is “The Reverend Dr. Katherine Grieb.”

    Doug Spurlin

  4. Dä'ved Äyan

    Jim, please chime in. Surely it was not something that silly, was it?

  5. Paul Woodrum

    Daved: From a Diocese of Newark guideline on “How to Address Members of the Episcopal Clergy.”

    “It is grammatically incorrect to refer to a member of the Episcopal clergy as ‘Reverend’ or as ‘Reverend Holt,’ or to address them directly as ‘Reverend’ or ‘Reverend Holt.’

    “In speaking directly to a member of the clergy, it is appropriate to say ‘Mr., Ms.,Mother, Father, Pastor, (Dr)’ accompanied with the last name. If referred to in the third person, the person may be called ‘The Reverend Mr. or Ms. Holt’ with the last name or ‘Father or Mother Holt’ with the last name of the person when it is desirable to indicate that the person is a priest. When the person is being introduced and it is desired that the whole name be used, the person is then referred to as ‘The Reverend Carol Holt.'”

    From the pre 1960’s prescriptive days for dictionaries and grammar, it has to do with not confusing adjectives, honorific or otherwise, like ‘reverend and honorable’ with nouns like ‘pastor or judge’ or a full name.

    The Associated Press is either ignorant of correct usage or has replaced formal, written English with casual, common, descriptive, spoken street jargon.

  6. Sorry to be late responding to this. I am now not sure about the original objection to my usage of “the Rev. Grieb.” I thought, originally, that people thought it was too formal, and thought I should have called her Kathy. We are sometimes that informal on the blog, but, though I know Kathy Grieb and like her, I am not on such friendly terms with her that I’d call her Kathy in the text. Now it seems the objection is that I did not use some other title. I can say two things about this. The Diocese of Newark’s guidelines for how to address clergy are not consistant with the Diocese of Washington’s. I don’t know if those are still on the website, but they don’t include the word Mr. or Mrs. or Mother or Father. So to my knowledge, after seven years in Episcopal Church communictions, there is no set style for this within the church. That said, if there were a set style, it wouldn’t matter anywhere besides within the church. News agencies make their own rules. One reason they make their own rules is because titles confer authority in news stories. And as a news writer does not want to seem to be signaling deference to one source over another, they come up with common rules to how to refer to the people whom they quote on second reference. This doesn’t have to do with their being ignorant of correct usage. It has to do with wanting to be fair to all of their sources, and not clot of their stories with honorifics that will confuse more readers than they will enlighten.

    Most newspapers, including those within the Episcopal Church, follow AP. Some follow the NYT. There may be some I am not aware of that follow the Chicago Manual of Style. It seems I have a tendency to flip back and forth between AP and NYT. I am not really sure why that is an issue here, but there’s my two cents on titles and styles.

  7. One other thing, I think that neither AP or NYT uses the title Dr. for anybody other than a medical doctor. The British press has a different style on this, I believe, frequently refering to the Archbishop of Canterbury as Dr. Williams. I have done the same on occassion.

  8. Dä'ved Äyan

    WOW! So it really was something just that silly.

Comments are closed.