Church of England lifts ban on gay bishops

[GKC]

Isaiah45_9:
Indeed.

GKC

 

[Dempsey1919]

Join the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.

With prayer and study the Holy Spirit will lead you to accept the Catholic doctrines you are currently struggling with.

 

[SteveVH]

Broaden this, Steve. ANY sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage is sin. The irony of the ELCA position is that heterosexual pastors who have a partner must be married, while homosexual pastors may be in a dedicated relationship.

Now, I don’t know if Bishop Erwin is in an intimate relationship or not, but if he is, it is a sad, sad statement on the direction of the ELCA.

Jon

Yes, you are exactly right. Thanks for making the point. This is something that I think is overlooked by many. Homosexuals are called to no higher standard than are heterosexuals. The nature of the beast, however, leaves only celibacy as an option for the homosexual.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Celibacy simply has nothing to do with the issue at hand because Anglican bishops do not take a vow of celibacy. The issue is the homosexual act which is inherently different than a bishop who may wish to marry someday.

Whether they take an explicit vow of celibacy is irrelevant. The very OP states that gay clergy in civil partnerships can be ordained if they remain celibate. Celibacy is being in the state of not being married, so the two really are mutually exclusive… unless the CoE is simply trying to say that should actual legal marriage be opened up to gay couples in England, CoE Bishops are forbidden from contracting such a marriage.

 

[SteveVH]

Whether they take an explicit vow of celibacy is irrelevant. The very OP states that gay clergy in civil partnerships can be ordained if they remain celibate. Celibacy is being in the state of not being married, so the two really are mutually exclusive… unless the CoE is simply trying to say that should actual legal marriage be opened up to gay couples in England, CoE Bishops are forbidden from contracting such a marriage.

Yes, you are correct that the OP used the word “celibate”. I think they chose the wrong word. Rather than “celibate”, the word “chaste” seems more applicable to me. If you are in a relationship you are not being celibate. And I’m sorry, but does anyone believe that those involved in a “civil partnership” are going to live a chaste life? It is called placing yourself in the near occasion of sin at best.

I think the best measure of this is to imagine a heterosexual priest, regardless of whether he has taken a vow of celibacy, and try to imagine that it is okay for he and the Church receptionist to move in together, as long as they promise that no hanky panky is taking place. It is ridiculous and scandalous.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, you are correct that the OP used the word “celibate”. I think they chose the wrong word. Rather than “celibate”, the word “chaste” seems more applicable to me. If you are in a relationship you are not being celibate. And I’m sorry, but does anyone believe that those involved in a “civil partnership” are going to live a chaste life? It is called placing yourself in the near occasion of sin at best.

I think the best measure of this is to imagine a heterosexual priest, regardless of whether he has taken a vow of celibacy, and try to imagine that it is okay for he and the Church receptionist to move in together, as long as they promise that no hanky panky is taking place. It is ridiculous and scandalous.

There are two things involved in gay relationships: the sexual aspect and the emotional intimacy. You are failing to distinguish between them. There is nothing in orthodox Christianity that forbids men from having emotionally intimate relationships with other men. Indeed, traditionally this would be included in friendship. But that’s not how same-sex friendship works in our culture. Marriage is, effectively, the only emotionally intimate relationship people are allowed to have (or at least that men are allowed to have–I think the situation is a bit different for women).

The envisaged situation is not as ridiculous as you think, and no more difficult than some of the things Catholic teaching asks of people. You are essentially saying that “gay” men are to be emotionally as well as sexually starved, which is cruel.

I’m quite aware that it would be odd, in our culture, for a chaste (i.e., sexless) “civil partnership” to exist. But that’s not really the issue. The question is whether the laments and jeremiads on this thread are justified by anything in orthodox Christian teaching. And I can’t see that they are.

ERWT

 

[SteveVH]

There are two things involved in gay relationships: the sexual aspect and the emotional intimacy. You are failing to distinguish between them. There is nothing in orthodox Christianity that forbids men from having emotionally intimate relationships with other men.

What is orthodox Christianity? Catholic priests are not allowed to have “emotionally intimate relationships with other men” of the type we are discussing. Everything changes when there is sexual attraction involved. To argue that that the sexual aspect and the emotional intimacy can be distinguished is not a realistic argument. “We promise to live emotionally as lovers, in the same domicile, but not to touch each other”. Right.

The envisaged situation is not as ridiculous as you think, and no more difficult than some of the things Catholic teaching asks of people. You are essentially saying that “gay” men are to be emotionally as well as sexually starved, which is cruel.

No, that is not what I have said. Homosexuals are called to the same holiness and chastity to which heterosexuals are called who are not in the state of marriage. Sin begins in the mind and the heart. One does not have to have a physical relationship in order to sin with another and to willingly place one’s self in that position is a sin in and of itself. When two people of the same sex enter into a “civil partnership” it isn’t just because they’re good buddies.

I’m quite aware that it would be odd, in our culture, for a chaste (i.e., sexless) “civil partnership” to exist. But that’s not really the issue. The question is whether the laments and jeremiads on this thread are justified by anything in orthodox Christian teaching. And I can’t see that they are.

ERWT

Once again, what is orthodox Christian teaching? To whose definition are you referring?

 

[Novocastrian]

What is orthodox Christianity? Catholic priests are not allowed to have “emotionally intimate relationships with other men” of the type we are discussing. Everything changes when there is sexual attraction involved. To argue that that the sexual aspect and the emotional intimacy can be distinguished is not a realistic argument. “We promise to live emotionally as lovers, in the same domicile, but not to touch each other”. Right.

No, that is not what I have said. Homosexuals are called to the same holiness and chastity to which heterosexuals are called who are not in the state of marriage. Sin begins in the mind and the heart. One does not have to have a physical relationship in order to sin with another and to willingly place one’s self in that position is a sin in and of itself. When two people of the same sex enter into a “civil partnership” it isn’t just because they’re good buddies.

Once again, what is orthodox Christian teaching? To whose definition are you referring?

In the first millennium church, married men were sometimes ordained on condition of sexual continence, yet obviously without divorce
That seems to be the closest analogy that I can think of.

 

[Contarini]

What is orthodox Christianity?

Effectively, Catholicism

Catholic priests are not allowed to have “emotionally intimate relationships with other men” of the type we are discussing.

Please cite the teaching that says this. We’re not talking about discipline here, we’re talking about doctrine. What is sinful about having an intense emotional relationship with another man?

Everything changes when there is sexual attraction involved.

I’m not sure it does. I think this is part of the mystique of sex that is so common in our society. I think you have ironically bought into the basic claim of the gay rights movement, which is that the relationship between two gay men is pretty much exactly the same as that between a man and a woman. If this is an unnatural situation, and one highly shaped by culture, then it’s not something inevitable.

To argue that that the sexual aspect and the emotional intimacy can be distinguished is not a realistic argument. “We promise to live emotionally as lovers, in the same domicile, but not to touch each other”.

You’re using the phrase “as lovers” which I think distorts the issue. Romantic love is very much a cultural construct.

St. Aelred of Rievaulx’ On Spiritual Friendship is often cited as a “gay” text even though St. Aelred clearly condemns any sexual relationship outside of marriage (needless to say, he means “heterosexual” marriage!). This is because St. Aelred’s way of talking about same-sex friendship sounds like what we would now expect from romantic love and/or marriage (and according to some accounts, he even allowed his monks to express this emotion through holding hands, which was controversial). (Note: I’m not arguing that St. Aelred was “gay”–I don’t think anyone was “gay” until about a century ago, though certainly many people had sexual attraction for people of the same sex.)

Yet this is a saint of the Church. . . .

Sin begins in the mind and the heart. One does not have to have a physical relationship in order to sin with another and to willingly place one’s self in that position is a sin in and of itself.

I think that Catholic teaching on “occasions of sin” is more complex than you’re allowing. What if, for a “gay” person, being lonely and separated from a person whom they deeply love is a far more acute “occasion of sin”?

When two people of the same sex enter into a “civil partnership” it isn’t just because they’re good buddies.

Friendship as traditionally defined is a lot more than being a “good buddy.”

In the medieval Eastern Church (and I believe in some other parts of the Church as well, bu tit’s best documented for the East) there were “adelphopoiesis” ceremonies in which people of the same sex would swear brotherhood with each other. These liturgies borrowed from the liturgy of marriage. That led the gay scholar John Boswell to argue that they were effectively “gay marriages.” Boswell was wrong about that–even scholars with a strong bias in favor of Boswell’s agenda generally admit he went too far. But as with St. Aelred, clearly something was going on that we can’t quite fit into our contemporary paradigms.

Edwin

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Church of England will eventually divide and suffer a serious schism. The two camps will not be reconciled. It’s time for all Anglo Catholics to join with Rome. Swim the Tiber - the water is fine.

 

[manualman]

…The envisaged situation is not as ridiculous as you think, and no more difficult than some of the things Catholic teaching asks of people. You are essentially saying that “gay” men are to be emotionally as well as sexually starved, which is cruel.

I’m quite aware that it would be odd, in our culture, for a chaste (i.e., sexless) “civil partnership” to exist. But that’s not really the issue. The question is whether the laments and jeremiads on this thread are justified by anything in orthodox Christian teaching. And I can’t see that they are.

In theory this is very true and I suspect it’s one of the reasons modern gay activists think they see closeted gay men everywhere in history, from King David and Johnathon right down to John Henry Newman and plenty in between. They see evidence of a bond far deeper than ‘buds’ and jump to the conclusion that sodomy was involved. Ridiculous, of course.

But on topic, I suspect you are missing the point. The movement to extend legal recognition to ‘same sex marriage’ or civil partnerships is not about getting your health insurance to cover your best friend. It’s about getting societal approval for homosexual relations. Do you really think this Church of England decision was reached in order to facilitate brotherly love? That’s “Arizona beachfront property” level of reaching!

 

[GKC]

In the first millennium church, married men were sometimes ordained on condition of sexual continence, yet obviously without divorce
That seems to be the closest analogy that I can think of.

Erroneous post.

GKC

 

[GKC]

In theory this is very true and I suspect it’s one of the reasons modern gay activists think they see closeted gay men everywhere in history, from King David and Johnathon right down to John Henry Newman and plenty in between. They see evidence of a bond far deeper than ‘buds’ and jump to the conclusion that sodomy was involved. Ridiculous, of course.

But on topic, I suspect you are missing the point. The movement to extend legal recognition to ‘same sex marriage’ or civil partnerships is not about getting your health insurance to cover your best friend. It’s about getting societal approval for homosexual relations. Do you really think this Church of England decision was reached in order to facilitate brotherly love? That’s “Arizona beachfront property” level of reaching!

Cardinal Newman and Fr. Ambrose St. John present a curious case, perhaps along Contarini’s lines, to be sure. One also thinks of Lewis’ FOUR LOVES.

GKC

 

[manualman]

Cardinal Newman and Fr. Ambrose St. John present a curious case, perhaps along Contarini’s lines, to be sure. One also thinks of Lewis’ FOUR LOVES.

GKC

Precisely and I think Edwin is quite right that modern society has lost something crucial in developing a culture in which hetero man are presumed to be unable to have profound relationships with other men without it being sexual somehow.

Where I think he is wrong is in seeming to assert that it’s appropriate for such men to claim a ‘civil partnership’ which is nothing more or less than a political mean of manipulating public approval of gay relationships. The priviledges of marriage in law and policy came about precisely due to the conjugal meaning of marriage (i.e. it tends to make needy, expensive babies). Thus, society has gradually developed certain incentives and compensations for those who enter marriage. It’s inappropriate for people NOT in such a relationship to demand those benefits.

In other words, why can’t a CoE bishop with a profound friend like Fr. St. John get along without calling him his ‘civil partner?’ Wouldn’t it be MORE prophetic to simply be deep friends and work as reclaiming the ability in society for men to love one another as brothers?

 

[GKC]

Precisely and I think Edwin is quite right that modern society has lost something crucial in developing a culture in which hetero man are presumed to be unable to have profound relationships with other men without it being sexual somehow.

Where I think he is wrong is in seeming to assert that it’s appropriate for such men to claim a ‘civil partnership’ which is nothing more or less than a political mean of manipulating public approval of gay relationships. The priviledges of marriage in law and policy came about precisely due to the conjugal meaning of marriage (i.e. it tends to make needy, expensive babies). Thus, society has gradually developed certain incentives and compensations for those who enter marriage. It’s inappropriate for people NOT in such a relationship to demand those benefits.

In other words, why can’t a CoE bishop with a profound friend like Fr. St. John get along without calling him his ‘civil partner?’ Wouldn’t it be MORE prophetic to simply be deep friends and work as reclaiming the ability in society for men to love one another as brothers?

I tend to agree.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Precisely and I think Edwin is quite right that modern society has lost something crucial in developing a culture in which hetero man are presumed to be unable to have profound relationships with other men without it being sexual somehow.

Where I think he is wrong is in seeming to assert that it’s appropriate for such men to claim a ‘civil partnership’ which is nothing more or less than a political mean of manipulating public approval of gay relationships. The priviledges of marriage in law and policy came about precisely due to the conjugal meaning of marriage (i.e. it tends to make needy, expensive babies). Thus, society has gradually developed certain incentives and compensations for those who enter marriage. It’s inappropriate for people NOT in such a relationship to demand those benefits.

In other words, why can’t a CoE bishop with a profound friend like Fr. St. John get along without calling him his ‘civil partner?’ Wouldn’t it be MORE prophetic to simply be deep friends and work as reclaiming the ability in society for men to love one another as brothers?

I don’t think civil partnerships are about expressing emotions, but about having legal benefits. I can think of at least two instances of people (though only women, which may be significant) who live in long-term relationships with someone of the same sex and would benefit from such things as hospital visitation rights. The people I have in mind are not “gay” in any discernible way. They are just women who have never married but who share much of their life with another woman. I see nothing sinful about this, and in principle I think civil partnership legislation ought to benefit such people, without any implication that they have a sexual relationship or even sexual attraction for each other.

However, the reason I intervened in this debate was that this decision was being treated as another example of Anglican apostasy. All I’m saying is that no heretical stance on human sexuality is implied by this decision. I am not saying that the decision is a good one (I don’t think I am competent to make that call), and I’m certainly not saying that it’s a good idea for clergy to avail themselves of civil partnership legislation. I agree that this is a typical muddled English compromise and will probably result in a lot of “wink wink.” But it is a compromise designed precisely to preserve an orthodox stance on human sexuality. Its problems are practical, not doctrinal.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

Please cite the teaching that says this. We’re not talking about discipline here, we’re talking about doctrine. What is sinful about having an intense emotional relationship with another man?

Nothing at all. I’m all for it. I have had and continue to have intense emotional relationships with other men. But I have never asked one of them to enter into a “civil partnership” with me. The point being that the very act of doing such a thing puts the relationship, both emotional and physical, in an entirely different light. It seems odd that I have to explain this.

I’m not sure it does. I think this is part of the mystique of sex that is so common in our society. I think you have ironically bought into the basic claim of the gay rights movement, which is that the relationship between two gay men is pretty much exactly the same as that between a man and a woman. If this is an unnatural situation, and one highly shaped by culture, then it’s not something inevitable.

Inevitable? No. Probable? Very.

You’re using the phrase “as lovers” which I think distorts the issue. Romantic love is very much a cultural construct.

Fine. Choose your own term.

I think that Catholic teaching on “occasions of sin” is more complex than you’re allowing. What if, for a “gay” person, being lonely and separated from a person whom they deeply love is a far more acute “occasion of sin”?

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.

In the medieval Eastern Church (and I believe in some other parts of the Church as well, bu tit’s best documented for the East) there were “adelphopoiesis” ceremonies in which people of the same sex would swear brotherhood with each other. These liturgies borrowed from the liturgy of marriage. That led the gay scholar John Boswell to argue that they were effectively “gay marriages.” Boswell was wrong about that–even scholars with a strong bias in favor of Boswell’s agenda generally admit he went too far. But as with St. Aelred, clearly something was going on that we can’t quite fit into our contemporary paradigms.

Edwin

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. We are talking about gay bishops living in the same house with their gay “partner” with the promise that they won’t engage in sexual activity. To accept this as somehow “ok” is beyond me.

 

[manualman]

I don’t think civil partnerships are about expressing emotions, but about having legal benefits. I can think of at least two instances of people (though only women, which may be significant) who live in long-term relationships with someone of the same sex and would benefit from such things as hospital visitation rights. …

I agree that this is a typical muddled English compromise and will probably result in a lot of “wink wink.”

The first paragraph can be addressed with durable power of attorney under existing law. (Or is that “Barrister” in England??) No need for “civil union.”

The second paragraph we agree on.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Is there anything wrong with being a gay bishop? To the fellow Catholics here criticizing the Anglican Church’s decision, the reality is that a high percentage of priests in the Catholic Church happen to be gay. There is nothing wrong with this. One study done by a priest found that its a majority bordering 70%.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Is there anything wrong with being a gay bishop? To the fellow Catholics here criticizing the Anglican Church’s decision, the reality is that a high percentage of priests in the Catholic Church happen to be gay. There is nothing wrong with this. One study done by a priest found that its a majority bordering 70%.

The Church disagrees with you.

Read the Catechism, the New Testament and Theology of the Body and then you’ll know that actively engaging in homosexual behaviour is sinful.

As to why a gay man cannot be a bishop I suggest you read the Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. This quotation from that document should answer your question:

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”

This document concerns the Catholic Church but it will provide the reasons why Catholics are opposed to so-called Gay Bishops in any church.