First lesbian bishop to be consecrated by Anglican church in America

[larkin31]

I agree that dogma should not be a political decision if that is what you mean, nor should reference to membership statistics, no matter which way the line is trending. If you thought that I was suggesting that the Episcopal church dogma should be altered with reference to membership numbers, let me correct that conclusion. That was not what I meant.

These congregations may not be making these moves “willy-nilly” but they are doing it in direct opposition to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion at large. I have no idea whether or not they’re consulting their membership and, if so, how. But it appears to me that they are definitely operating with an elitist “we know better than you” mentality. It cannot be viewed as insignificant that they are going up against the rest of the Anglican Communion. I can only assume that much of the Anglican Communion finds many of the actions of TEC as profoundly offensive and troublesome.

As for the decline in membership, it may very well be the result of some of these attitudes. For me, the Episcopal church lost its relevancy a while ago. While I do find the elitist mentality offensive, that was not the reason I left the church.

Believing one “knows best” is the theist mantra, is it not? I hear this from just about every believer, and certainly so here at CA. Even Jesus thought he could purge the religious hierarchy of their wrongs. Christianity began with a movement that thought they “knew better” than the establishment.

I am familiar with the process of another denomination’s movement toward allowing gays to be ordained and preach. It can be difficult, and divisive, yes. But such is the nature of religious change, as early Christianity shows us, too.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Believing one “knows best” is the theist mantra, is it not? I hear this from just about every believer, and certainly so here at CA. Even Jesus thought he could purge the religious hierarchy of their wrongs. Christianity began with a movement that thought they “knew better” than the establishment.

I am familiar with the process of another denomination’s movement toward allowing gays to be ordained and preach. It can be difficult, and divisive, yes. But such is the nature of religious change, as early Christianity shows us, too.

So you’re saying TEC is on the cutting edge of religious evolution?

I profoundly disagree with your analogy. I believe it is completely inaccurate. But I’m not going to fight with you. Have a nice life.

 

[larkin31]

So you’re saying TEC is on the cutting edge of religious evolution?

I profoundly disagree with your analogy. I believe it is completely inaccurate. But I’m not going to fight with you. Have a nice life.

No, “cutting edge of religious evolution” is not a phrase I would use. As I said, I am familiar with a different denomination’s work in this area, and I would not use your phrase to describe their attitude, either. They simply do not feel that private sexual companionship coupled with love with a fellow adult of the same gender is the “sin” that it has traditionally been perceived to be.

I did not know that we were “fighting”. Same to you.

 

[John7]

How far does TEC want to push the envelope?

1. openly male homosexual bishop
2. openly female homosexual bishop
   what’s next
3. openly transsexual bishop?
   or perhaps
4. openly polygamous bishop?

hey, skies the limit

 

[Anna_Scott]

The Rev Mary Glasspool will become Assistant Bishop of Los Angeles in a “grand event” taking place at a 13,500-seat arena on the Californian coast.
Her appointment is being made despite warnings from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, about the “serious questions” it will raise for the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion. . . . .

I’ve been attending a wonderful Episcopal Church. The leadership is vibrant and conservative.

These latest ordinations are very unsettling. I have great compassion for those of same sex affections, and I really do not know whether homosexuality is a result of genetics, environment, choice, a combination of all three, or something else entirely. I do not want any group to be excluded from the life of the Church. I don’t want to discriminate against any group. However, this liberal move to ordain an openly lesbian Bishop is heartbreaking, as it seems in direct contradiction with Orthodox Christianity. Perhaps I am wrong.

I thought I had finally found my place within Christianity. I may be packing once again. Need to spend much time in prayer. This is a sad time for me and many Episcopalians in the Anglican Communion.

Anna

 

[eucharisteo]

Such a shameful thing. Anglicans are being persecuted by their own church leaders.

 

[Contarini]

So, celibate homosexuals may not be priests?

The Catholic Church does *not *teach that they are invalid matter, though this (appalling, in my opinion) suggestion has been made by a couple of conservative Catholic theologians to my knowledge. However, the standing policy of the Catholic Church is that persons with “deep-rooted same-sex desires” should not be ordained as a matter of prudence.

Edwin

 

[benidict]

If a congregation or denomination chooses to ordain a gay minister, who are we to say they can’t?

if the minister is living in a openly sinful manner, reguardless if they are heterosexual or homosexual, then how can a church in good consience ordain either. where does the line get drawn? what behavior from a person, do you think Would disqualify them from ordination? Peace

 

[Nine_Two]

So open acknowledgement is not the issue?

It is a gross simplification if it is anything.

 

[Contarini]

What I am suggesting is not about morality though. More like “what is a male”. If homosexuality were understood as a kind of defect in ones maleness, as it would be with a hermaphrodite for example, it wouldn’t have anything to do with morality. It would be a defect in the physical matter.

Fr. Guy Mansini of St. Meinrad’s has suggested something like this in *First Things, *and I have heard Fr. Navarro-Valls (JPII’s spokesman) quoted as saying something similar.

This is certainly not Donatism, but I find it absurd and unorthodox for a number of reasons.

1. It’s a completely new idea in the history of the Church as far as I can see. There is no recognition in Christian tradition that homosexuals have a different nature than anyone else. I can’t for the life of me see any need for such an innovation. Homosexuals are simply people who suffer from a particular kind of disordered sexual desire.
2. Pragmatically, this argument plays into the hands of the liberals, because it accepts their basic premise about the “nature” of homosexuals. In fact, if I were to accept the premise that homosexuality is ontological, I’d have to take the liberal position.
3. This position is very hard to apply, to the point that I consider it intrinsically incoherent. It seems pretty clear that people are not simply homosexual or heterosexual, but that there is a spectrum ranging from 100% heterosexual to 100% heterosexual. At what point would you draw the line? When you’re making a claim about nature you need to be able to draw the line clearly. That leads into the fact that
4. Homosexuality is arguably not a physical condition at all. I know that this is a dubious proposition these days, since many folks would argue that everything is physical, and there is some evidence that homosexuality may result from a gene or more likely from brain chemistry issues. So I consider this my weakest objection. But I think it is highly dubious to say that people who are biologically male are not “really male” because of psychological factors. It opens up a huge can of worms–what about other kinds of psychological conditions? Will we get to the point where anyone who isn’t entirely psychologically healthy is considered invalid matter? (Again, that is hugely different from saying that a certain degree of psychological health is required as a matter of prudence.)
5. All the above arguments apply whether one believes in women’s ordination or not. From my perspective, the fact that some opponents of women’s ordination make this further argument is additional reason to reject the maleness requirement altogether. I will grant that this is a slippery-slope argument and should not be given any more weight than the opposing slippery-slope argument so often made by folks on both sides (i.e., that if you ordain women there is no good reason to exclude practicing homosexuals). But from my perspective both arguments–this one even more obviously than the anti-WO argument–smack of an idolatrous attitude to maleness. I think the most theologically defensible position is that any validly baptized person may be validly ordained, though of course may validly baptized people should not be validly ordained. I think that the attempt to make maleness a condition for validity in the absence of traditional beliefs about the imperfection of the female leads in fact to a rather radical break with traditional Christian ideas about human nature. And I think that the ironic agreement of conservative Catholics with liberals about the nature of homosexuality further underlines the fact that “conservative” ideas about gender have moved in a direction that is very far from traditional.

Edwin

 

[larkin31]

if the minister is living in a openly sinful manner, reguardless if they are heterosexual or homosexual, then how can a church in good consience ordain either. where does the line get drawn? what behavior from a person, do you think Would disqualify them from ordination? Peace

I don’t know

lots of things, but mostly only criminal things or forms of dishonesty or cruelty

but love for another adult of the same gender as deep as mine for my spouse? No, it is not a disqualifier for me in terms of ministering the Gospels. God is love, no? Or is God straight love?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Maybe I’m just ignorant, but it would seem to me that “openly gay” = someone who is practicing their sexual orientation, as opposed to someone who has that orientation but does not act on it.

Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I don’t see where the question of the morality of these persons, including the new Suffragen (sp ?) Bishop, is being addressed. Unless TEC has changed the definition and I didn’t notice, sexual activity is only moral within the context of a marital relationship. “Openly gay” persons may be many things but most of the time in this country they are not married. So is TEC saying that sexual promiscuity is OK? And if so, for whom? Just for gays or for everyone?

I am not gay, but I am unmarried, so, as I understand it, sexual relations for me would be sinful. Does that change if someone is gay? at least for Episcopalians?

 

[larkin31]

It is a gross simplification if it is anything.

perhaps

so address the point then instead of ignoring it or pretending that it is not part of the point

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I don’t see where the question of the morality of these persons, including the new Suffragen (sp ?) Bishop, is being addressed.

I’m not sure what you mean. That is what I take to be the subject being addressed constantly by *both *sides, though admittedly the “liberal” side tends to make an end run around the issue by using the rhetoric of “inclusion” and likening gays to other groups historically discriminated against. Still, when you address the issue of morality, you will get answers–very much along the lines of larkin31’s post right before yours.

Unless TEC has changed the definition and I didn’t notice, sexual activity is only moral within the context of a marital relationship. “Openly gay” persons may be many things but most of the time in this country they are not married. So is TEC saying that sexual promiscuity is OK? And if so, for whom? Just for gays or for everyone?

I am not gay, but I am unmarried, so, as I understand it, sexual relations for me would be sinful. Does that change if someone is gay? at least for Episcopalians?

The argument is that promiscuity is wrong, but that a relationship characterized by mutual love and fidelity is good and holy. There are three places one can go with this argument:

1. Advocate for gay marriage. That would seem to be the most logical course for people who believe the argument stated above. But in my experience many Episcopalians stop short of this–or used to. I’m sure that will change as gay marriage becomes more widely legal and more socially acceptable. The interim vicar of my parish in New Jersey (well, the parish I attended–I never officially joined it, largely because of this issue), who describes himself as “liberal orthodox,” insisted that he didn’t advocate for gay marriage while advocating for the blessing of same-sex unions. This leaves two remaining possibilities:
2. One may argue that sexual relations are legitimate outside of marriage if the relationship shows other signs of being a virtuous and godly one. This appears to be what many Episcopalians believe, but what one is likely to hear as the first line of defense is rather
3. That when the Church blesses a relationship, sex isn’t the thing being blessed per se. Rather, the Church is saying that this relationship between two human beings has virtuous and godly qualities, and the Church wants to strength and encourage those qualities. In my experience, those arguing for the blessing of SSU’s tend to downplay the sexual element in such relations and even accuse critics of SSU’s of being dirty-minded when they insist on talking about the sexual element. (I don’t mean that it’s put that crudely, and the truth is that conservatives often open themselves up to this charge by engaging in graphic descriptions of what homosexual practice involves in an attempt to unveil what they see as the depravity behind the nice relational language.) One piece of rhetoric I’ve frequently heard is, “The Church blesses all sorts of things–why on earth can’t we bless a loving relationship among two people?” Another rhetorical tactic is to describe the normal day of a gay couple to indicate that, just like a heterosexual couple, such a relationship is not primarily about sexual passion but about sharing a life together. I think that there is considerable strength to this argument. But unfortunately the liberals don’t distinguish clearly between it and arguments 1 and 2. And logically, if we bless a same-sex union unequivocally and in quasi-marital terms, either 1 or 2 is being implied. Since I think both 1 and 2 are totally incompatible with orthodox Christianity, I have to oppose the blessing of SSU’s, even though I agree that such relationships may have many virtuous and godly qualities that are worthy of blessing.

Edwin

 

[Nine_Two]

perhaps

so address the point then instead of ignoring it or pretending that it is not part of the point

I didn’t ignore the point, I said you were missing the point by making that into the whole point.

The point is that you have people openly living contrary to the commands of the Faith. Whether they flaunted homosexuality, straight non-marrital sex, alcoholism, drug abuse, it wouldn’t matter.

 

[Bluegoat]

So, celibate homosexuals may not be priests?

Fr. Guy Mansini of St. Meinrad’s has suggested something like this in *First Things, *and I have heard Fr. Navarro-Valls (JPII’s spokesman) quoted as saying something similar.

This is certainly not Donatism, but I find it absurd and unorthodox for a number of reasons.

Edwin

My understanding of the Catholic Church’s position, which is that homosexuals, even if they are celibate, are “inherently disordered” and so not eligible for the priesthood. Not as a matter of prudence, but something more like they are invalid matter. THis honestly makes little sense to me, for many of the reasons that have been laid out, so if I am wrong that that is the teaching I will feel less confused.

1. It’s a completely new idea in the history of the Church as far as I can see. There is no recognition in Christian tradition that homosexuals have a different nature than anyone else. I can’t for the life of me see any need for such an innovation. Homosexuals are simply people who suffer from a particular kind of disordered sexual desire.

I agree, it would be a new idea.

1. Pragmatically, this argument plays into the hands of the liberals, because it accepts their basic premise about the “nature” of homosexuals. In fact, if I were to accept the premise that homosexuality is ontological, I’d have to take the liberal position.

Not necessarily. We say that femaleness is ontological, but we don’t allow women to be ordained.

1. This position is very hard to apply, to the point that I consider it intrinsically incoherent. It seems pretty clear that people are not simply homosexual or heterosexual, but that there is a spectrum ranging from 100% heterosexual to 100% heterosexual. At what point would you draw the line? When you’re making a claim about nature you need to be able to draw the line clearly. That leads into the fact that

Yes, this is a serious difficulty.

1. Homosexuality is arguably not a physical condition at all. I know that this is a dubious proposition these days, since many folks would argue that everything is physical, and there is some evidence that homosexuality may result from a gene or more likely from brain chemistry issues. So I consider this my weakest objection. But I think it is highly dubious to say that people who are biologically male are not “really male” because of psychological factors. It opens up a huge can of worms–what about other kinds of psychological conditions? Will we get to the point where anyone who isn’t entirely psychologically healthy is considered invalid matter? (Again, that is hugely different from saying that a certain degree of psychological health is required as a matter of prudence.)

I am inclined to think that homosexuality is in most cases a physically caused phenomena, although influenced by culture. Here is a question, in cases of hermaphrodites or other unusual sexual development, what does the Church do? I believe they do not ordain such people. Is that just because it would be difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint the person’s sex at all, or is it seen as being somehow marred? What is such a person - a man, a woman, or something else? (And it may be in the past some such things went undetected!)

But if one took this line, could we not say that physical deformities of any kind impact a person’s “valid matter” in the area of is humanity? That is just silly - we could have no priests missing a toe, or that were diabetic.

1. All the above arguments apply whether one believes in women’s ordination or not. From my perspective, the fact that some opponents of women’s ordination make this further argument is additional reason to reject the maleness requirement altogether. I will grant that this is a slippery-slope argument and should not be given any more weight than the opposing slippery-slope argument so often made by folks on both sides (i.e., that if you ordain women there is no good reason to exclude practicing homosexuals). But from my perspective both arguments–this one even more obviously than the anti-WO argument–smack of an idolatrous attitude to maleness. I think the most theologically defensible position is that any validly baptized person may be validly ordained, though of course may validly baptized people should not be validly ordained. I think that the attempt to make maleness a condition for validity in the absence of traditional beliefs about the imperfection of the female leads in fact to a rather radical break with traditional Christian ideas about human nature. And I think that the ironic agreement of conservative Catholics with liberals about the nature of homosexuality further underlines the fact that “conservative” ideas about gender have moved in a direction that is very far from traditional.

I keep getting confused while reading this, so I had better not comment. I am getting too little sleep I think.

 

[larkin31]

I didn’t ignore the point, I said you were missing the point by making that into the whole point.

The point is that you have people openly living contrary to the commands of the Faith. Whether they flaunted homosexuality, straight non-marrital sex, alcoholism, drug abuse, it wouldn’t matter.

Yeah, I don’t get too worked up about sexual “sin” between non-married partners in loving relationships. I just don’t. I find the Bible neurotic about this issue, and rather unhelpful about homosexuality specifically.

 

[benidict]

Yeah, I don’t get too worked up about sexual “sin” between non-married partners in loving relationships. I just don’t. I find the Bible neurotic about this issue, and rather unhelpful about homosexuality specifically.

only speaking for myself my friend. but i have found that the only non-married loving relationship to have, is plutonic. once you introduce sexuality into it, it becomes a whole new game. its like going all in in poker. eventually one or the other partner has to show all their cards. and it usually comes down to a lack of commitment in one or both partners. there really is not a lot of True love, which would require sacrifice in these type of relationships. not saying marriage is perfect either. but at least the couple has made a commitment in front of God and man to attempt to stay together for life. does not always work. but i think there is a much better chance. peace

 

[pipper]

Yes, it is their actions that have costed the Catholic Church millions of dollars.

No Stephen it is the actions of pedophiles that have cost the church millions, and not homosexuals. Those are two different things. And before you ask I am not a homosexual, but I am aware of the difference.

 

[Dale_M]

The consecration sounds festive.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori served as chief consecrator in the multi-lingual Spanish, Korean, Tagalog and English service. The festivities included seven processions, led by Korean drummers, University of California Riverside bagpipers, and the Taiko Project Drummers. A Gospel procession was led by the Rev. Lester Mackenzie to the steady beat of the djembe, an African drum.

Musical offerings included: Shepherd’s Flute, a Chinese American praise band from St. Thomas Church in Hacienda Heights, and a gospel rendition of “All My Trials, Lord,” sung by the Rev. Canon Deborah Dunn, rector of St. Peter’s Church in Santa Maria, California.

Filipino, Chinese and African American dance groups performed, as did a mariachi band. A 125-voice choir from the diocese’s 147 congregations offered musical selections from Nigerian, South African, Italian and other traditions.

episcopalchurch.org/79425_122244_ENG_HTM.htm

Roughly 30 bishops attended and there were only two hecklers.