First lesbian bishop to be consecrated by Anglican church in America

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluegoat said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that a priest must have all ten fingers.
 
Dale_M said:
The consecration sounds festive. 🙂

episcopalchurch.org/79425_122244_ENG_HTM.htm

Roughly 30 bishops attended and there were only two hecklers.
Click to expand...
Representatives from the Tongva, Chumash, Tataviam and Acjachemem Native American tribes, upon whose lands the Los Angeles diocese is located, welcomed 3,000 clergy and laity, family and friends, and civic, ecumenical and other guests, blessing the gathering, building and the land with smoldering sage incense and songs for the “two beautiful shepherds” at the start of the ceremony.

Los Angeles’ rich diversity was represented in song and dance, amid a mosaic of varying races, ethnicities, ages, genders, and sexual orientations – none of which mattered, said Bishop Jon Bruno, a co-consecrator and homilist, “because we are all people of God.”

In a sermon frequently interrupted by applause and laughter, Bruno paid tribute to the historical occasion, recalling how he had once protested women’s ordination, and now would be serving with two women bishops.
Click to expand...
“The world’s transformed only if we turn to each and every one of our brothers and sisters and see the face of Christ superimposed on them,” he said. “The ones we disagree with the most are the ones we’re obligated to share our lives and teach the most.”
Click to expand...
 
Bluegoat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m quite sure that you are wrong. This has been suggested by a couple of conservative theologians, as I mentioned. I suppose it’s possible that it could become official teaching at some point, though I hope not.

Having disordered desires does not make one invalid matter for the priesthood. For that matter, we all have disordered desires in one way or another. (Note: traditional Christian opinion certainly gives homosexuality a “special” status in this regard, but it’s not clear to me that official Catholic language mandates this.) I think you read too much into the “intrinsically disordered” language. The point of that language is that homosexual desires cannot under any circumstances be morally legitimate. Heterosexual desires are always going to be disordered in fallen human beings, but they are not intrinsically disordered–having heterosexual desire is in itself perfectly good and natural.
Not necessarily. We say that femaleness is ontological, but we don’t allow women to be ordained.
Click to expand...
Actually I wasn’t talking about ordination here but about same-sex marriages. My point was that of homosexuality really were its own ontological category, then the desires wouldn’t be “intrinsically disordered.”

However, I have huge problems with the Catholic position with regard to women’s ordination, as I note below. I think it logically implies either that women cannot be saved or that they need a separate female incarnation of the Logos in order to be saved (and since the Shakers were wrong, this amounts to the same as the previous option). But that’s a digression.
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!)
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, you raise good questions. As I said, I think this is a mess best avoided by simply saying that all who may be baptized may validly be ordained, and beyond that it’s a question of discernment.

There are a lot of rules in the Catholic Church (and most other large Christian bodies) about who may and may not be ordained, but it’s important to distinguish (at least in the Catholic case) between invalid and illicit ordination, those who *cannot *and those who *should not *be ordained.

Edwin
 
The Falun Gong taught us that even Donkeys can be ordained. Hence, Democrats and Donkey Gong himself can become full-fledged Gongs.
 
Donkey_Gong said:
And your speculation is correct.
Click to expand...
if you figured out where i was going with this. you see the slippery slope argument i would love to make. but there are younger readers out there, and i really dont know how i would phrase it. peace:)
 
Contarini said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was actually referring to the posters here, where I didn’t see it addressed. I should have been more clear.
Contarini said:
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
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up Edwin.
 
pipper said:
No Stephen it is the actions of pedophiles that have cost the church millions, and not homosexuals. Those are two different things.
Click to expand...
Actually, they both have cost the church millions, but the subject of the thread was homosexuality not pedophilia.
pipper said:
And before you ask I am not a homosexual, but I am aware of the difference.
Click to expand...
I am also aware of the difference and it is not a random legal one.

The point of my post was that someone with thoughts of sin is not that same as someone who actually sins. Which makes me wonder if thoughts of a specific sin should bar a man from the priesthood.
 
Have any of your actually read the TEC’s official reason for the ordination of homosexual people? I would check it out.
 
nhylan said:
Have any of your actually read the TEC’s official reason for the ordination of homosexual people? I would check it out.
Click to expand...
The official reason, as far as I can tell, is that anyone who may be baptized, may also be ordained.
 
Ahimsa said:
The official reason, as far as I can tell, is that anyone who may be baptized, may also be ordained.
Click to expand...
Perhaps people should be reading the actual theological paper before they decide to condemn their actions.
 
New here, so please bear with me. 🙂 Maybe an Episcopalian can answer this. Since the leadership of the Episcopal Church has taken this action, they must have a reason for thinking it is acceptable. Is it:
  1. The Church of centuries past was always wrong to deny such ordinations & consecrations, but now we know better.
  2. Cultural norms and mores truly affect what is and is not acceptable before God.
or 3) There has been a new revelation or breakthrough in understanding the Scriptures on this matter.

Or perhaps there is a 4) that I haven’t considered yet.
 
nhylan said:
Perhaps people should be reading the actual theological paper before they decide to condemn their actions.
Click to expand...
I understand that the Anglican conception of the ministry and holy orders is vastly more complex than my own. So I cannot compare the two. I am sure that their reasons are lengthy. However, we approach the ministry as one that requires the individual to be of the highest moral character, as instructed by the Apostle Paul. Therefore, anyone in open, unrepentant sin should not be ordained to the position of elder. This would disqualify homosexuals insofar as they are unrepentantly living that lifestyle. We know that all Christians are both saint and sinner. Nor does it directly mean that homosexuality is “worse” than any other sin. We should not ordain unrepentant drunkards, either.
 
Soldier_X said:
New here, so please bear with me. 🙂 Maybe an Episcopalian can answer this. Since the leadership of the Episcopal Church has taken this action, they must have a reason for thinking it is acceptable. Is it:
  1. The Church of centuries past was always wrong to deny such ordinations & consecrations, but now we know better.
  2. Cultural norms and mores truly affect what is and is not acceptable before God.
or 3) There has been a new revelation or breakthrough in understanding the Scriptures on this matter.

Or perhaps there is a 4) that I haven’t considered yet.
Click to expand...
I think they would say 1), which pretty much screws up how Anglicans have understood the Church and Tradition in the past.
 
There is one thing about which there is no need for speculation. The Anglican understanding of the priesthood is totally incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The error is a fundamental one, pertaining to the nature of priesthood and ordination. The Priesthood is tied to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which, like all Sacraments, was given to the Church, not invented by her, and has characteristics which therefore cannot be changed. There is not a universal acknowledgement among Anglicans that Holy Orders is to be considered a Sacrament, and it is taken to be something that has no characteristic that is beyond change through legislative process.

Once this is realized, the particulars of the manifestation of the errors becomes secondary, and not at all unexpected.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Soldier_X said:
New here, so please bear with me. 🙂 Maybe an Episcopalian can answer this. Since the leadership of the Episcopal Church has taken this action, they must have a reason for thinking it is acceptable. Is it:
  1. The Church of centuries past was always wrong to deny such ordinations & consecrations, but now we know better.
  2. Cultural norms and mores truly affect what is and is not acceptable before God.
or 3) There has been a new revelation or breakthrough in understanding the Scriptures on this matter.

Or perhaps there is a 4) that I haven’t considered yet.
Click to expand...
A combination of all three, really. The basic argument is that the Episcopal Church has recognized godliness in same-sex relationships, and this has forced a revisiting of traditional ideas about sexual morality. Continuity with the historic Christian tradition is allegedly maintained in two ways:
  1. The godliness recognized in same-sex relationships is the same that the Church has traditionally seen in heterosexual marriage–in other words, it’s not that gay people are being given a pass on basic Christian moral values, but that those values are in fact embodied in relationships that were once held to be intrinsically incapable of embodying them. Basically the argument here is that Christian morality is and always has been centered on the command to love God and neighbor.
  2. The further argument is that there is an arc of “inclusion” beginning with the decision to include the Gentiles as described in the Book of Acts. Christians grow in their recognition of who should be included, but the principle that God’s grace reaches out to those whom society has despised is allegedly well rooted in Scripture and tradition.
The Episcopal Church’s position is set forth in the document *To Set Our Hope on Christ. *The interpretation of Acts 15 found in that document is more or less the same as (and is probably directly indebted to) that of Luke Timothy Johnson as found in his book Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church.

My bishop. Edward Little, is one of the “Communion Partners”–bishops within the Episcopal Church who dissent from the currently dominant position and are committed to abiding by the mind of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Edwin
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
There is one thing about which there is no need for speculation. The Anglican understanding of the priesthood is totally incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The error is a fundamental one, pertaining to the nature of priesthood and ordination. The Priesthood is tied to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which, like all Sacraments, was given to the Church, not invented by her, and has characteristics which therefore cannot be changed. There is not a universal acknowledgement among Anglicans that Holy Orders is to be considered a Sacrament, and it is taken to be something that has no characteristic that is beyond change through legislative process.

Once this is realized, the particulars of the manifestation of the errors becomes secondary, and not at all unexpected.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
who gave you these sacraments?
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
There is one thing about which there is no need for speculation. The Anglican understanding of the priesthood is totally incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The error is a fundamental one, pertaining to the nature of priesthood and ordination. The Priesthood is tied to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which, like all Sacraments, was given to the Church, not invented by her, and has characteristics which therefore cannot be changed. There is not a universal acknowledgement among Anglicans that Holy Orders is to be considered a Sacrament, and it is taken to be something that has no characteristic that is beyond change through legislative process.

Once this is realized, the particulars of the manifestation of the errors becomes secondary, and not at all unexpected.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
And yet there are Anglicans who affirm precisely that Orders constitute a sacrament, and hold precisely to the concept of the sacrificing priesthood exercising those Orders in the other appropriate sacraments.

Depends on the Anglicans. In generalizing, you will be, generally, wrong.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top