"Episcopalians Against Equality"

[lucybeebee]

Not only does this Washington Post opinion piece get the schism in the Anglican Commuion completely wrong, it also devotes a considerable amount of space insulting Catholics and Third World Christians of all types. Because we’re all so backward for not making the WaPo Style section our personal Magestrium.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901282.html

 

[didymus]

Not only does this Washington Post opinion piece get the schism in the Anglican Commuion completely wrong, it also devotes a considerable amount of space insulting Catholics and Third World Christians of all types. Because we’re all so backward for not making the WaPo Style section our personal Magestrium.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901282.html

From the article:

In slamming the door on their American co-religionists, the two largest parishes, which are in Fairfax City and Falls Church, also announced their affiliation with the Episcopal Church of Nigeria. The presiding Nigerian archbishop, Peter Akinola, promotes legislation in his country that would forbid gays and lesbians to form organizations or to eat together in restaurants and that would send them to jail for indulging in same-gender sexual activity. Akinola’s agenda so touched the hearts of the Northern Virginia faithful that they anointed him, rather than Jefferts Schori, as their bishop

.

The writer sarcasm aside, this got me wondering, just how should Christians deal with the issue? The current Catechism states:

** Chastity and homosexuality **

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who    experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of    the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries    and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely    unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual    acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that    "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary to    the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do    not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no    circumstances can they be approved. 
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual    tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual    condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with    respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination    in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill    God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the    sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from    their condition. 
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of    self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of    disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and    should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection

But I’m willing to bet that older catechisms called upon the civil authorities to arrest homosexuals just as the current one says that it is the State’s job to stamp out pornography.

Is it possible to hate the sin but love the sinner? When I was young everybody knew that gays all went straight to Hell – this may never have been officially proclaimed as doctrine but it was certainly the prevailing Catholic attitude.

Let’s say Christians win the fight against gay marriage and gay adoption – how much farther should it go: making sodomy illegal again? Mandatory treatment to “cure” them?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

But I’m willing to bet that older catechisms called upon the civil authorities to arrest homosexuals just as the current one says that it is the State’s job to stamp out pornography.

In all matters of faith and morals, it is the responsibility of the temporal State authority to do just what (no more, no less) the Church dictates. All pornography, homosexual acting out, abortion, etc. would be stamped out in a perfect world.

As St. John Chrysostom says, we can stamp out heretics and close their schools but shouldn’t kill them. Error has no rights, and properly understood, this is still the case.

Is it possible to hate the sin but love the sinner? When I was young everybody knew that gays all went straight to Hell – this may never have been officially proclaimed as doctrine but it was certainly the prevailing Catholic attitude.

Granted, “back in the day” popular theology was overly simplistic but they hold true. Knowing what we know in faith, having homosexual relationships isn’t going to get you to heaven. We can’t judge because we don’t know, but we know very well that objectively speaking, homosexual acts are gravely sinful.

Let’s say Christians win the fight against gay marriage and gay adoption – how much farther should it go: making sodomy illegal again? Mandatory treatment to “cure” them?

If would depend. I don’t have any problem with making sodomy illegal. We all know that everything will still go on behind closed doors, but at least we wouldn’t have to put up with this filth in public.

 

[a_cermak]

In all matters of faith and morals, it is the responsibility of the temporal State authority to do just what (no more, no less) the Church dictates. All pornography, homosexual acting out, abortion, etc. would be stamped out in a perfect world.

As St. John Chrysostom says, we can stamp out heretics and close their schools but shouldn’t kill them. Error has no rights, and properly understood, this is still the case.

Granted, “back in the day” popular theology was overly simplistic but they hold true. Knowing what we know in faith, having homosexual relationships isn’t going to get you to heaven. We can’t judge because we don’t know, but we know very well that objectively speaking, homosexual acts are gravely sinful.

If would depend. I don’t have any problem with making sodomy illegal. We all know that everything will still go on behind closed doors, but at least we wouldn’t have to put up with this filth in public.

We don’t live in a perfect world though. In the States, I live in a nation grounded in the US Constitution which allows each person to determine what is or is not error. So your statement error has no rights would not be true here.

What most of the people I know who are opposed to ++Akinola protest is his support of legislation which negates the free speech and right to free assembly, to say nothing of right to petition the government of homosexuals. This is profoundly unAmerican behavior, however Akinola is a Nigerian, not an American so I would expect him to hold un-American beliefs. Those in the breakaway Churches I have less understanding of. I see no reason why they could not have found a Bishop that preached in the way they believed but that didn’t support such un-American standards of governance.

 

[rr1213]

In all matters of faith and morals, it is the responsibility of the temporal State authority to do just what (no more, no less) the Church dictates…Error has no rights…

Care to establish biblical proof for these assertions? Church and State have different roles and neither is permitted to dictate to the other. Applying this principle in practice is easier said than done, but it is a fundamental component of the freedom of religion that those of us enjoy in the United States, Catholic as well as Protestant. Frankly, as much as I hate to say this, if the United States had been colonized by Catholics I doubt seriously that religious freedom would exist in this country.

Per the teaching of the Church, the following statements are deemed to be in error:

"77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

1. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
2. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
3. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861."

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

 

[ComradeAndrei]

We don’t live in a perfect world though. In the States, I live in a nation grounded in the US Constitution which allows each person to determine what is or is not error. So your statement error has no rights would not be true here.

Except that there is no such things as subjective morality, regardless of what this country’s constitution says. It is not infallible, nor eternal, and was drafted by a bunch of guys in the grip of the Enlightenment.

Granting “give unto Caesar” and the tolerance allowable in order to promote civil harmony in line with what the Church has always taught, error has no right in and of itself equal to Truth.

What most of the people I know who are opposed to ++Akinola protest is his support of legislation which negates the free speech and right to free assembly, to say nothing of right to petition the government of homosexuals. This is profoundly unAmerican behavior, however Akinola is a Nigerian, not an American so I would expect him to hold un-American beliefs. Those in the breakaway Churches I have less understanding of. I see no reason why they could not have found a Bishop that preached in the way they believed but that didn’t support such un-American standards of governance.

Un-American? Who cares. While I don’t know what this Nigerian Anglican Archbishop believes or preaches for sure, when it comes to morality and doctrine a church should not be subject to a secular power nor should it adopt secular modes of governance.

This is what many Catholics in America need to learn-good ol’ obedience. The Church isn’t the American gov’t, nor is it run by opinion polls and populism. I think this may be what some of the conservative Anglicans are realizing and trying to follow. They want a Church that doesn’t kowtow to modernist outrages and they see it in this African prelate because their own indigenous prelates have dropped the ball.

 

[rr1213]

This is profoundly unAmerican behavior, however Akinola is a Nigerian, not an American so I would expect him to hold un-American beliefs. Those in the breakaway Churches I have less understanding of. I see no reason why they could not have found a Bishop that preached in the way they believed but that didn’t support such un-American standards of governance.

Because Akinola is a Godly man who has taken a stand in support of traditional Episcopalians. He’s not the only Anglican Bishop to do so, but he is certainly the most prominent and the most influencial. The Episcopal Church has had the ability to deal with its problems vis-a-vis conservative Episocopalians for years but, instead, has decided that it is better to ignore and insult them while continuing, of course, to accept their tithes and offerings. Now those chickens are coming home to roost and the biggest Episcopal diocese in the country has lost almost 10% of its active parishioners and its most historical and influential parishes.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Care to establish biblical proof for these assertions?

We can see it foreshadowed in the OT, God doesn’t allow His people to flagrantly disregard His laws and if they do they are punished for it. There is also no where in the New Testament that says we need to allow all the outrages that people think they have a “right” to. One can only have a right to do something that is moral.

Church and State have different roles and neither is permitted to dictate to the other.

Yes they do have different roles, but the Church reigns supreme and sits in judgment over the State if they think they have the authority to legislate what is immoral.

Applying this principle in practice is easier said than done, but it is a fundamental component of the freedom of religion that those of us enjoy in the United States, Catholic as well as Protestant. Frankly, as much as I hate to say this, if the United States had been colonized by Catholics I doubt seriously that religious freedom would exist in this country.

Well, since in all reality I am talking from a “perfect world” perspective, there shouldn’t be any other religion but the Catholic religion. Too bad it wasn’t colonized by Catholics first.

Per the teaching of the Church, the following statements are deemed to be in error:

"77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

1. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

1. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

1. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861."

Peter has spoken through Pius, Gloria Deo!

 

[a_cermak]

Because Akinola is a Godly man who has taken a stand in support of traditional Episcopalians. He’s not the only Anglican Bishop to do so, but he is certainly the most prominent and the most influencial. The Episcopal Church has had the ability to deal with its problems vis-a-vis conservative Episocopalians for years but, instead, has decided that it is better to ignore and insult them while continuing, of course, to accept their tithes and offerings. Now those chickens are coming home to roost and the biggest Episcopal diocese in the country has lost almost 10% of its active parishioners and its most historical and influential parishes.

And I’m glad that they are finding a better body to worship in for them. Always to be so angry with the structures of the Church isn’t good for them or for the Church.

What I find most distressing is that while the breakaways themselves have real theological issues such as Scripture only and Jesus as the only path to Salvation, it is the anti-gay thing that is always front and center in any news coverage and even within their public discussions. I sincerely think they would have a better future in this country if they had found a less lightning rod of a Bishop to follow. They will have little evangelization potential as long as they are seen as Episcopalian but anti-gay instead of a more positive assertion of what it is they do believe.

 

[a_cermak]

Yes they do have different roles, but the Church reigns supreme and sits in judgment over the State if they think they have the authority to legislate what is immoral.

Well, since in all reality I am talking from a “perfect world” perspective, there shouldn’t be any other religion but the Catholic religion. Too bad it wasn’t colonized by Catholics first.

Goodness, I’m glad I live in my world rather than your “perfect” world. I am a convert from Catholicism to the Episcopal Church so I shudder to think of what my treatment would be like in your world.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Goodness, I’m glad I live in my world rather than your “perfect” world. I am a convert from Catholicism to the Episcopal Church so I shudder to think of what my treatment would be like in your world.

Well, as long as you didn’t try to propagate error, you wouldn’t have a problem. Remember, belief cannot be forced either.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We don’t live in a perfect world though. In the States, I live in a nation grounded in the US Constitution which allows each person to determine what is or is not error. So your statement error has no rights would not be true here.

Truth isn’t cognizant of geographical locale. What Comrade Andrei stated is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the issues he cited. There is no relative truth, there is only Truth. Error has no rights, though people in error certainly do.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And I’m glad that they are finding a better body to worship in for them. Always to be so angry with the structures of the Church isn’t good for them or for the Church.

What I find most distressing is that while the breakaways themselves have real theological issues such as Scripture only and Jesus as the only path to Salvation, it is the anti-gay thing that is always front and center in any news coverage and even within their public discussions. I sincerely think they would have a better future in this country if they had found a less lightning rod of a Bishop to follow. They will have little evangelization potential as long as they are seen as Episcopalian but anti-gay instead of a more positive assertion of what it is they do believe.

Could you cite what about the “breakaways” is particularly anti-gay? I’m a former Episcopalian, though I was raised Southern Baptist, and I follow the goings-on in my old church with interest.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Error has no rights, though people in error certainly do.

Amen.

 

[rr1213]

We can see it foreshadowed in the OT, God doesn’t allow His people to flagrantly disregard His laws and if they do they are punished for it. There is also no where in the New Testament that says we need to allow all the outrages that people think they have a “right” to. One can only have a right to do something that is moral.

Biblical sources? As you noted above, I’d start with “render unto Caesar…” and the passages that talk about our obligation as Christians to obey the civil authorities…

Well, since in all reality I am talking from a “perfect world” perspective, there shouldn’t be any other religion but the Catholic religion. Too bad it wasn’t colonized by Catholics first.

Agreed. Too bad. This way we actually get to have religious freedom and freedom of conscience. God himself allows us to choose him or reject Him. He won’t bind our consciences, but the Catholic Church will. Go figure.

 

[rr1213]

What I find most distressing is that while the breakaways themselves have real theological issues such as Scripture only and Jesus as the only path to Salvation, it is the anti-gay thing that is always front and center in any news coverage and even within their public discussions. I sincerely think they would have a better future in this country if they had found a less lightning rod of a Bishop to follow. They will have little evangelization potential as long as they are seen as Episcopalian but anti-gay instead of a more positive assertion of what it is they do believe.

Perhaps. As you note, the differences go much further than simply the ordination of Bishop Robinson. Nonetheless, it was his ordination by the Episcopal Church, in the face of explicit requests from the Anglican Communion not to do so, which has precipitated this crisis. Perhaps even more inflamatory was the Episcopal Church’s response to the Windsor Report which made short shift of biblical admonishments against homosexual behavior and, instead, proclaimed to the Anglican world that this was a new thing which God was doing in our midsts and akin to when Peter had his revelation that the Gospel message applies to gentiles as well as jews. And, finally, at the last convention another opportunity for correction is avoided and, to throw lighter fluid on the fire, a woman bishop is selected as the Presiding Bishop. The liberal establishment in the Episcopal Church keeps talking about pluraform truths and dialoguing, but they do not want to actually sit down and reason together like Christian men and women to see if an amicable resolution is achievable. Only on their terms…

Sorry, I know you remain Episcopalian, but I remain bitter.

 

[rr1213]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=125258

A timely example of the wisdom is separating Church from State, as well as the necessity for the State to ensure that freedom of religion, even for minority Catholics, is guaranteed.

 

[a_cermak]

And, finally, at the last convention another opportunity for correction is avoided and, to throw lighter fluid on the fire, a woman bishop is selected as the Presiding Bishop. The liberal establishment in the Episcopal Church keeps talking about pluraform truths and dialoguing, but they do not want to actually sit down and reason together like Christian men and women to see if an amicable resolution is achievable. Only on their terms…

Sorry, I know you remain Episcopalian, but I remain bitter.

Actually I came to the Episcopal Church because I sought a Church with the Real Presence, a tolerance for homosexuality (I have gay friends and family), some form of democratic governance, and a history behind it that could resonate with my own ethnic traditions. The Episcopal Church fit the bill once I realized it was not pro-England (I am Irish, needless to say Mother England was unkind to several of my ancestors).

As far as the woman presiding Bishop, we’ve had women Bishops since the 70’s and Windsor said nothing about women Primates.

As far as Windsor, I believe they did come up with some kind of statement. Remember, the Episcopal Church doesn’t as a body bless gay unions. Some parishes do, some don’t and there are no official rubrics for doing so. No priest is forced to do so at any rate. And while there were gay candidates up in some elections, none were elected since Robinson. In truth, I think the departure of the more conservative parishes might actually bring about more gay bishops as the Church left will be more liberal.

Bishop Robinson was elected by his diocese, both the clergy and the laity. I think that’s an important element here.

Like I said though, I wish the breakaways a good spiritual journey. I hope the Church and them can come to equitable agreements on property, pensions, etc. so that it reflects well on all as Christians.

I’m sorry you’re bitter, I hope I haven’t made it worse.

 

[rr1213]

(I am Irish, needless to say Mother England was unkind to several of my ancestors).

An understatement if anything.

In truth, I think the departure of the more conservative parishes might actually bring about more gay bishops as the Church left will be more liberal.

A real possibility I suppose.

Bishop Robinson was elected by his diocese, both the clergy and the laity. I think that’s an important element here.

I have to disagree with you there. I think that the Church has an obligation to see that its bishops hold to the faith received from the apostles. If they do not, then they should not be ordained. I also wonder whether the same deference to local selection will be honored with respect to the conservative bishop-elect of South Carolina. There are already signs that liberals in the Church will oppose his ordination while, of course, they supported the ordination of Robinson and the thrice-married bishop in California. What’s good for the goose…?

Like I said though, I wish the breakaways a good spiritual journey. I hope the Church and them can come to equitable agreements on property, pensions, etc. so that it reflects well on all as Christians.

Yes. I am very afraid that both sides will resort to lawsuits amongst themselves, another unbiblical principle as we know.

I’m sorry you’re bitter, I hope I haven’t made it worse.

No, not at all. I need to be able to talk about it without being bitter, but I suppose I am not at that stage yet.