Support the Café

Search our Site

Bishop Brewer & the McCaffreys issue separate updates on last night’s meeting about Baby Jack’s baptism

Bishop Brewer & the McCaffreys issue separate updates on last night’s meeting about Baby Jack’s baptism

The Orlando Sentinel has word from the Rt Rev Greg Brewer that baby Jack, the child at the center of a storm of questions over his postponed baptism, will indeed be baptized at the Cathedral Church of St Luke, as originally planned by his parents with the cathedral Dean, the Very Rev Anthony Clark.

Brewer declined to set a date, leaving that to the parents to announce. He did say that

he did not oppose the baptism of the child. He added there was some disagreement between Clark and the two men as to whether the date of the baptism was firm or tentative.


On his Facebook page, Rich McCaffrey has provided an update from him and Rich regarding their meeting with Bishop Brewer last night. The current word is that Jack will be baptized this summer and the bishop has offered to participate. They report a pleasant meeting with the bishop and state that he understood the original baptismal date to have been firm. He also expressed that he didn’t support the postponement.

Rich addressed a question many folks have posssed; Why are they choosing to remain a part of the cathedral parish?

We are returning because we still have faith in the goodness of people, and we trust people have good intent and ultimately will do the right thing. This is not to say faith or trust should be given blindly, but there are moments when you must choose to rise above the fray and acknowledge you are part of something bigger.

Posted by Rosalind Hughes, updated by David Allen


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published).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 be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cynthia Katsarelis

Ann Fontaine posted a link to this past Sunday’s sermon by St. Luke’s canon, L’Hommedieu. It would be great for everyone to have access to this “response.” Spoiler alert, we’re all the devil.

Eric Bonetti

With all respect, the bit about inflaming things to try to finagle a meeting with the bishop is lame. Who on earth wants to meet the bishop? I mean, I like our bishops here in DioVA, but it’s not like meeting the pope. No big deal.

Meanwhile, concur with Bro David. Part of the issue is that the cathedral staff made it a big deal in the first place. Just quietly schedule the baptism and be done with it.

David Murray

As for me – I believe the details of this issue speak for themselves. The two parents have been polite, and fulled with proper concern for the baptism of their child.

As for the rest – the church as a whole was aware, and behaved in a proper order of concern that the faith was the focus in the rite of baptism. Only those wanting to cover-up the desire of some need be concerned. The days of hiding is over.

Ric Schopke

It is with great sadness that I have read the comments on this site and elsewhere concerning the recent events at my church in Orlando. The attitudes of commenters who claim the name of Christ should reflect that name. Few have done so. My comment here has nothing to do with the subject of baptism or with homosexuality. It pertains to attitude, especially Christian graciousness. Perhaps each of us feels that if we don’t stand up for the Cause (whatever it is, or whatever side of it) no one else will. Read through the comments and try to find the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

We have assumed, demeaned, given and used false information, assigned motives, presumed, ranted, slandered, spoken without knowledge of all the parties involved or all the facts, and in general shown forth our Righteous Indignation. Sometimes our righteous indignation can be extremely unrigheous. It is too late to reword our thoughts and re-act our reactions for this situation. Perhaps we can more prayerfully consider what we say, especially as Christians posting about Christians on a Christian website.

I have hesitated writting this. I don’t want to over-react or assign false motives by what I have said, but the most of the comments I have read have simply added more hurt and stress to an already hurtful and stressful situation. Thank you for listening. May God’s grace help us all to be gracious and grace-full.

Linda McMillan

You know, I don’t say this very often, but I agree with Fr. Paul on this one.

I did not hear him say that anyone should storm out, nor did I hear him say that the two dads should have done anything differently. What I heard him say is that the problem extends beyond this one incident. There is an overarching problem of institutionalized homophobia which was not addressed. TEC managed to edge past this one more time with everyone smiling and being nice, and nothing actually changing.

David Allen

I suggest that you reread Paul’s first paragraph in his 2nd post in this thread of comments;

Rich and Eric have my support and I suspect they were blindsided by the response to their request, and rejoice they spoke out publically. However, by dealing with this only as a matter of a baptism and not confronting the systemic homophobia at every step along the way, they (and most of those replying on this forum) are party to sweeping under the rug the anti-gay discrimination evident from the initial request/refusal to have their child baptized at Easter, agreeing to a separate baptism at an evening service, and finally meeting with the bishop only about the baptism.

Emphasis mine.

Paul is upset/disappointed that the dads didn’t handle the entire affair, from the original date for a Sunday evening baptism to the topic of their meeting with the bishop, differently. He has a different agenda of what they should have done.

Bro David

Linda McMillan

I completely agree with Fr. Paul.

The dads shouldn’t have had to choose between Easter Sunday morning and an alternative that would be more comfortable for some members. That they made the best choice for them and their family is not at issue. I think everybody supports the family. What is important, and what has not been addressed, is the fact that they had to make that decision. In the midst of the smiles and self-congratulations that has still not been addressed.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café