Clergy in celibate same-sex civil partnerships can become bishops under the new rules. I’m not sure what the point of a celibate civil partnership is or whether the sustained maintaining of such a thing is believable – but that is the latest naive or surreptitiously scheming, depending on one’s perspective, CofE edict on how to accommodate homosexual bishops. The Dean of St Albans, Dr Jeffrey John, falls into this category and was denied his appointment as bishop last year; I suppose he will have another go this year.
It’s hard not to see this as a next step to the position reached in North America: clergy at every level vigorously engaged in homosexual activity. Including bishops.
From the BBC:
The announcement, from the Church’s House of Bishops, would allow clergy in civil partnerships to become bishops if they promised to be celibate.
Conservative evangelical Anglicans say they will fiercely resist the development in the synod.
The issue has split the church since 2003 amid a row over gay cleric Jeffrey John becoming Bishop of Reading.
Mr John, now Dean of St Albans, was forced to step down from the role after protests from traditionalists.
He was also a candidate for Bishop of Southwark in 2010 but was rejected. Evidence emerged that this was because of his sexual orientation.
Evangelicals have warned they would be willing to bring in bishops from overseas to avoid serving under a gay bishop.
The Church has already agreed to allow people in civil partnerships to become clergy, provided they promised they would remain celibate, and repent for active homosexuality in the past.
Those conditions are now to be extended to clergy becoming bishops.
Am I understanding this correctly — the CofE now will ordain as bishops gay men in civil relationships, but women not at all? Gay men have diverted attention away from what should have been feminism’s issues, to include its evolving to realize a greater reconciliation of women and men. Along with throwing the Gospel out the window, it isn’t right for the Church to embrace homosexuality in this way, on the basis that it normalises separation or alienation of the sexes.
Time will tell to see if Canterbury and Global Anglicanism can have any future together.
A once Faithful and exemplary Church has now fallen. Now that the homosexual wedge had firmly forced its way into the door it will not stop. Heresy will be heaped upon heresy, and this Church will die a slow and painful death.
Perhaps it is time for a new Reformation.
1.
I stand with Lisa on this one.
There is no question that women were in leadership roles in the early church. The only question is how those roles would transpose into today’s church.
For the Church of England to promote homosexual men to the bishopric, while denying women, is unfathomable.
YA I know, some woman bishops haven’t been the best of candidates. But that isn’t because of their gender. It is a failure of the evaluation process.
As far as I’m aware, there is no change of policy here. The C of E has allowed celibate gays to be ordained for years, on the basis that homosexual acts, not inclinations, are sinful. This simply seems to be a restatement of long-standing policy.
Gordon, I’m not so sure of that. Jeffrey John is in a celibate civil partnership and his appointment as a bishop was blocked last year. After this statement, that would not happen.
While agree that it is the act not the inclination that is sinful, I am suspicious of clergy who claim they are celibate while in a civil partnership.
It was, but that was due to the reaction within the Church, not the Church’s rules: the appointment was blocked because some of the laity and clergy refused to accept him.
Righly so. If a priest who was living common law with a woman, was called on it and said ‘ok, we will be celibate now’, but still lived with her – would you believe him? It’s the same thing here.
I have no problem with same sex attracted priests or bishops – we all struggle with something. I do have a problem with priests or bishops saying, either with their words or with their lives, that sleeping with someone when you aren’t married (one man, one woman), is ok.
Some clarification:
From the Church Times:
and from the CofE website:
Sodor is a real place? I thought Rev. W. Awdry made it up…
It’s a real part of the name of the diocese, but I’ve never been able to find it on a map.
On checking, I find it’s the Norwegian name for the Diocese of the Southern Isles of Scotland, formed in 1154. The Isle of Man, which is the only part that remains in the Church of England, was added in the 17th century.
Would small insects from Sodor be Sodor-mites?
And who controls who becomes a bishop? Oh. So these are ALL state appointees, right?
The unbelieving state and its faithful puppets… The puppets rush, eagerly, to obey their master.
Note how the announcement was put out last thing on a Friday night just after New Year, with a view to avoiding negative coverage. Nobody wants this, after all, other than a handful of horrible people, who mainly want it in order to torment everyone else.
Still, it does settle one thing, once and for all; whether, in a Catholic sense, the Church of England is part of the church; and whether Anglican orders are valid. Clearly not, in both cases.
I clicked onto the BBC report, and it had the headline “Church of England has dropped its prohibition on gay clergy in civil partnerships becoming bishops”. But, when I clicked on the link in the BBC report back to the C of E website (“summary of House of Bishops decisions), I read something in churchese type talk:
“7.The House considered an interim report from the group chaired by Sir Joseph Pilling on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality. Pending the conclusion of the group’s work next year the House does not intend to issue a further pastoral statement on civil partnerships. It confirmed that the requirements in the 2005 statement concerning the eligibility for ordination of those in civil partnerships whose relationships are consistent with the teaching of the Church of England apply equally in relation to the episcopate.”
So, a journalist at the BBC is interpreting this as the House of Bishops dropping a prohibition. Maybe I am slow and missing something, but I read this statement as vague churchese language. I don’t read a new stance being taken, or any decision being made….Could the journalist be reading more into this, to generate a sensational headline ?????? Or is the journalist correctly interpreting the last seven words “apply equally in relation to the episcopate”???????
I’m sure you have seen by now that the diocese iof BC has approved the blessing of same-sex partnerships.
Yikes John! Knew it was coming but…While not a “marriage” right it is an approval of fornication which in itself (regardless of gender) is a repudiation of Scripture. What a waste 🙁
n’t there a recent article which made the comment that the Queen would have been a good candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury, given that her Christmas speech had a greater emphasis on Christ than did Wilby’s?
Oops! that was The Queen, not a queen, wasn’t it?
David from the land of noisy waters had his say about it.
Although the thought of the late Freddie Mercury in vestments might make Mrs. Schori start to drool.
As to David’s comment, “It’s hard not to see this as a next step to the position reached in North America: clergy at every level vigorously engaged in homosexual activity. Including bishops.”
Camille Paglia would agree. “It is ridiculous to assert that gay men are interested only in other gay men and would never ogle straight men in barracks showers. When I heard this on TV I burst out laughing. Anyone who belongs to a health club knows better. Sexual tension and appraisal are constants, above all among gay men, who never stop cruising everything in sight. Seduction of straight studs is a highly erotic motif in gay porn.”
Makes me think of one study’s finding that a dramatically higher rate of having been molested in childhood existed among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. Which, in turn, brings to mind what I know about the practice of pederasty in antiquity. Which would certainly seem to indicate people — men, anyway, in keeping with our Anglican bishopric discussion — are made rather than born gay.
NARTH’s Letter to the Catholic Bishops http://www.narth.com/docs/catholic.html
Good points Lisa. Interesting to note that wherever the Greco-Roman Empire went in the past there is still a marked practice of pederasty (i.e. the dancing boys of Afghanistan or “fagging” in public schools etc.)in the present.
St Matthew-in-the-City says ‘homosexual’ is not Greek or Hebrew but rather a 19th c word, so we can’t say Jesus wasn’t gay. But without accounting for what Greeks did practice; or explaining why, if there were sense in the idea of gay marriage, the licentious Hellenes didn’t see it. Likewise, I’ve been told by a gay priest here in Canada [and a networking, upwardly-mobile one too], St Paul didn’t know people have a gay nature it’s as wrong to deny as a straight one. Amazing how modern churchmen who live lives so removed from nature and practicality nonetheless are able to characterize what’s natural so much better than ancient Athenians or Apostles.
I’m beginning to think, while there may be a biological aspect to homosexuality — it would be hard to explain its existence otherwise — to say people are ‘born gay’ is tantamount to saying people who may have an increased tendency to chemical dependency are ‘born smokers.’ It’s more about upbringing and associations, which would seem to vindicate the wisdom of St Paul’s teachings. From which we could infer that the more homosexuality we have the more we will have. I also think the times are becoming ever more desperate with respect to the economy, with an unpleasant repudiation to follow.
That’s because it’s Latin, although “homo” does have its origins in ancient Greek…
Gordon, you might find this interesting.
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/the-pauline-origin-of-arsenokoitai/
It’s very similar to Robert Gagnon’s argument, which was published at about the same time, so while I haven’t seen it in this form, the issues were already familiar.
Great article Lisa. There were plenty of other words in the Greek lexicon that St. Paul could have used if he wanted to say what liberal revisionists would suggest. The literary evidence that Greek word arsenokoitai means man to man coitus is absolutely compelling. Sodomy, homosexual intercourse etc. are all acceptable English equivalents to the Greek word aforementioned despite what some politically motivated so-called scholars would say.
There are cases of identical twins who are one homosexual brother and one straight brother. If same sex attraction were purely genetic that wouldn’t happen.