Church of England to allow homosexual bishops

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.

27 thoughts on “Church of England to allow homosexual bishops

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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:

          THE moratorium on the appointment as bishops of gay priests in civil partnerships has been lifted.

          The House of Bishops announced in 2011 that clergy in civil partnerships should not be appointed as bishops until the outcome of a review of its 2005 statement on clergy in such partnerships ( News, 8 July 2011). The Bishop of Sodor & Man, the Rt Revd Robert Paterson, was subsequently appointed to chair the review group ( News, 2 December 2011); its other members were the Bishop of Portsmouth, the Rt Revd Christopher Foster, and the Bishop of Dorchester, the Rt Revd Colin Fletcher.

          Shortly before Christmas, Church House published a 13-point summary of business conducted by the House of Bishops when it met on 10 and 11 December. Point 7 of this, which has caused some confusion in online forums and among campaigners, said that the Bishops “considered an interim report from the group chaired by Sir Joseph Pilling on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality”. This group was set up in January 2012, with a wider remit than the group chaired by Bishop Paterson, which was looking specifically at civil partnerships ( News, 6 January 2012).

          The summary said that the Bishops did “not intend to issue a further pastoral statement on civil partnerships” until the Pilling group concluded its work later this year. It did not mention the work of Bishop Paterson’s group.

          The summary, however, went on to say that the Bishops “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”.

          This amounts to a lifting of the moratorium on the appointment of clergy in civil partnerships as bishops.

          and from the CofE website:

          The Rt Revd Graham James, Bishop of Norwich, today issued the following statement on behalf of the House of Bishops of the Church of England:

          “The House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships issued in 2005 did not address specifically whether clergy who entered such partnerships should be considered for the episcopate. What the House has now done, following the work undertaken by the group chaired by the Bishop of Sodor and Man set up last year, is to look at the matter again last month.

          “The House has confirmed that clergy in civil partnerships, and living in accordance with the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, can be considered as candidates for the episcopate. There had been a moratorium on such candidates for the past year and a half while the working party completed its task.

  5. 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.

  6. 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”???????

  7. 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 🙁

  8. 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?

    • This is the time of year when we remember that God sent his only son ‘to serve, not to be served’. He restored love and service to the centre of our lives in the person of Jesus Christ

      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.

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

Leave a Reply