Church of England lifts ban on gay bishops

[Contarini]

So, kind of a “I may sin with this person but if you keep me away I’ll sin even more acutely” type of thing? You got me. I have no idea how to respond to this.

Well, perhaps you should work on it, because it’s a serious issue. Why do you assume that the temptations posed by the presence of a loved person in the same house are greater than those posed by loneliness and emotional pain?

I think it’s reasonable to say that generally speaking sexual temptation, no matter one’s sexual orientation, is more intense and difficult to resist when one is lonely and suffering.

Parallel case: a divorced and remarried couple (especially but not only one that has children). In the absence of an annulment, do you tell them to split up to avoid the occasion of sin, or do you tell them to live as brother and sister, recognizing that depriving them of companionship and affection is going to provide even more occasions of sin?

What you say is very true, Edwin, but the subject matter of this thread is “Gay Bishops”. We are not talking about the differences in cultural mores concerning same sex friendships and American hang-ups concerning the same.

Yes, we are, because the subjects are inextricably connected. “Gay” is a cultural label, and a very recent one at that. You can’t talk about it without discussing changing concepts of love and friendship and identity.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

Well, perhaps you should work on it, because it’s a serious issue. Why do you assume that the temptations posed by the presence of a loved person in the same house are greater than those posed by loneliness and emotional pain?

We are all called to a chaste life, whether in or out of a relationship. Is it possible for two people who are sexually attracted to one another and in love to abstain from physical relations? Yes, it is possible. It is not, however, very probable. For a bishop to place himself in such a situation not only shows poor judgment but scandalizes the Church. I wonder how many really believe the good bishop and his gay partner are living a chaste life. Better to make the sacrifice and live alone, even if it is painful. Or don’t become a bishop in the first place.

I think it’s reasonable to say that generally speaking sexual temptation, no matter one’s sexual orientation, is more intense and difficult to resist when one is lonely and suffering.

I disagree completely. The priests to whom I have spoken about this issue tell me that celibacy is a wonderful gift. Are they tempted like any man? Of course. But they also receive graces with which to combat those temptations. What they receive more than makes up for what they have left behind.

Parallel case: a divorced and remarried couple (especially but not only one that has children). In the absence of an annulment, do you tell them to split up to avoid the occasion of sin, or do you tell them to live as brother and sister, recognizing that depriving them of companionship and affection is going to provide even more occasions of sin?

When there are children involved it adds another, very important layer of concern. I would not want to be the canon lawyer who has to figure these situations out, but you are correct, they would be advised to live as brother and sister. After a certain age this may become easier, but the fact that this is the moral way to behave in this situation doesn’t mean it is easy to carry out in reality, especially for a young, sexually active couple. It is truly a sad and difficult situation and I have a lot of compassion for those who find themselves in it.

But this is much different than the scenario we are discussing. We’re not talking about mom and dad and the kiddos.

Yes, we are, because the subjects are inextricably connected. “Gay” is a cultural label, and a very recent one at that. You can’t talk about it without discussing changing concepts of love and friendship and identity.

Edwin

Are you trying to tell me that we just don’t understand; that the bishop is not homosexual and attracted sexually to his gay partner, rather they just have a deep, intimate friendship that no one understands in our homophobic culture? Are you saying that the term “gay” has a different meaning then we think it does?

 

[Contarini]

Are you trying to tell me that we just don’t understand; that the bishop is not homosexual and attracted sexually to his gay partner, rather they just have a deep, intimate friendship that no one understands in our homophobic culture? Are you saying that the term “gay” has a different meaning then we think it does?

It has the meaning our society puts on it. It doesn’t correspond to anything created by God. It’s an amalgam: one element is a disordered sexual desire for a partner of the same sex, but it includes all kinds of cultural and emotional factors as well. I’m saying that I don’t think the label “gay” ought to be a category that the Church uses, period. I’m also saying that all kinds of emotional needs which are not themselves sinful may be bound up in a “gay” relationship, and that saying “you can keep the other stuff, as long as you aren’t in a sexual relationship” certainly may have problems and cause scandal, but it is not obviously heretical and may possibly in some cultural contexts be the best approach.

The test case here has repeatedly been one particular priest, Jeffrey John, who has been nominated for bishop repeatedly but has never been made bishop. I don’t know if his situation is a common one–I have always assumed that it was fairly unusual (i.e., that he is living in a “committed relationship” which he insists is celibate). What I do know is that pro-gay folks see Fr. John as the “smoking gun” showing that conservatives are nothing but hypocrites when we say that we reject only homosexual behavior. See, they say–Fr. John says he’s celibate and you still reject him. Therefore you really do condemn gay people for their orientation, not just their actions, and you really are prejudiced against them as people.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

It has the meaning our society puts on it. It doesn’t correspond to anything created by God. It’s an amalgam: one element is a disordered sexual desire for a partner of the same sex, but it includes all kinds of cultural and emotional factors as well. I’m saying that I don’t think the label “gay” ought to be a category that the Church uses, period. I’m also saying that all kinds of emotional needs which are not themselves sinful may be bound up in a “gay” relationship, and that saying “you can keep the other stuff, as long as you aren’t in a sexual relationship” certainly may have problems and cause scandal, but it is not obviously heretical and may possibly in some cultural contexts be the best approach.

The test case here has repeatedly been one particular priest, Jeffrey John, who has been nominated for bishop repeatedly but has never been made bishop. I don’t know if his situation is a common one–I have always assumed that it was fairly unusual (i.e., that he is living in a “committed relationship” which he insists is celibate). What I do know is that pro-gay folks see Fr. John as the “smoking gun” showing that conservatives are nothing but hypocrites when we say that we reject only homosexual behavior. See, they say–Fr. John says he’s celibate and you still reject him. Therefore you really do condemn gay people for their orientation, not just their actions, and you really are prejudiced against them as people.

Edwin

And what would the gay community say when we explain that we would not allow a heterosexual priest or bishop to live under the same roof with a heterosexual woman outside the bounds of marriage, even if he promised to remain celibate?

 

[manualman]

The test case here has repeatedly been one particular priest, Jeffrey John, who has been nominated for bishop repeatedly but has never been made bishop. I don’t know if his situation is a common one–I have always assumed that it was fairly unusual (i.e., that he is living in a “committed relationship” which he insists is celibate). What I do know is that pro-gay folks see Fr. John as the “smoking gun” showing that conservatives are nothing but hypocrites when we say that we reject only homosexual behavior. See, they say–Fr. John says he’s celibate and you still reject him. Therefore you really do condemn gay people for their orientation, not just their actions, and you really are prejudiced against them as people.

Perhaps that’s less a “smoking gun” of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives than a question of “Why do longtime male roomates need any sort of special societal blessing of their living arrangement that is usually associated with normalized sodomy?” I’ve had male roomates. I’ve had best friends. In my single days, I came close to buying a house as an investment with one of my friends. Never would it remotely have been of interest to me to try to get on his health insurance or demand his social security benefits if he died suddenly. Friendship, even profoundly deep friendships are simply of a different substance than marriage. The fact that this CoE minister doesn’t seem to understand the distinction suggests he’s unfit for promotion. How can he be expected to explain the difference to his flock if he demonstrates in his own life that he doesn’t understand it?

 

[Contarini]

And what would the gay community say when we explain that we would not allow a heterosexual priest or bishop to live under the same roof with a heterosexual woman outside the bounds of marriage, even if he promised to remain celibate?

Indeed, that’s a good counter-argument, and I believe that I used something like it when I had that discussion some years ago. But the problem I have with this is that it grants credence to the concepts of “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” assuming that a homosexual man relates to men as a heterosexual man relates to women. I’m not personally convinced that this is the case or that the Church should act on that basis. If we believe that homosexuality is really unnatural, we should be consistent on this point and should not suddenly start talking as if it were identical with natural (i.e., heterosexual) desire.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

Indeed, that’s a good counter-argument, and I believe that I used something like it when I had that discussion some years ago. But the problem I have with this is that it grants credence to the concepts of “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” assuming that a homosexual man relates to men as a heterosexual man relates to women. I’m not personally convinced that this is the case or that the Church should act on that basis. If we believe that homosexuality is really unnatural, we should be consistent on this point and should not suddenly start talking as if it were identical with natural (i.e., heterosexual) desire.

Edwin

Well, I don’t know how a homosexual relates to his or her partner. What I do know is that they would have society believe that there is no difference between them and anyone else and they want the same status. What any of this has to do with whether or not a gay person openly living with a “partner” should be a bishop, I don’t know.

 

[manualman]

But the problem I have with this is that it grants credence to the concepts of “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” assuming that a homosexual man relates to men as a heterosexual man relates to women.

I agree, which is why my last post took an entirely different tack. It’s not at all clear to me why two men who are close friends, but not lovers, need civil recognition that their friendship is equivalent to marriage in terms of law and social policy. If there’s no ‘eros’ in their relationship, then what’s the deal with the ‘civil partnership?’

 

[JonNC]

I agree, which is why my last post took an entirely different tack. It’s not at all clear to me why two men who are close friends, but not lovers, need civil recognition that their friendship is equivalent to marriage in terms of law and social policy. If there’s no ‘eros’ in their relationship, then what’s the deal with the ‘civil partnership?’

Taxes, legal rights such as insurance, and others. ISTM that a legal (domestic) partnership should be available to any two adults, two sisters or brothers, for example, who want to share one home, and get the tax and legal breaks a married couple get, etc.

Jon

 

[manualman]

Taxes, legal rights such as insurance, and others. ISTM that a legal (domestic) partnership should be available to any two adults, two sisters or brothers, for example, who want to share one home, and get the tax and legal breaks a married couple get, etc.

Jon

And why on earth should these benefits be extended to any two random people who demand it? Those benefits were established in the first place in order incentivize MARRIAGE, which was understood to be a relationship innately ordered towards making hungry, needy, expensive BABIES. Regardless of whether ALL marriages between a man and woman were capable of this, setting the standards that way created a loaded deck in which the state provided benefits to people engaged in a relationship innately ordered towards providing the next generation of healthy, happy and productive citizens.

None of that applies to siblings, best friends, gay lovers or lifelong chaste ministers. Therefore the benefits should not be extended to them either. I can’t understand why anyone thinks they should???