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.
benidict said:
its interesting to note, that the more liberal wing “vowed” to keep ordaining homosexual clergy. does this mean you must have homosexual on your resume to be ordained? its sad this is happening, and i really cannot think of a term for it. its kind of like spiritual suicide in that people who feel alienated by this practice will leave in droves. this has got to be tearing congregations apart. a friend of mine is an episcipalian priest, and i know he for one, would never stand for this. i think he belongs to a more conservative branch tho. i will pray for them. Peace:gopray2:
Click to expand...
What I find interesting is Rowan Williams already knows what happened in 2003 and yet here it goes… It is like they can’t help chopping the pillars that hold up the Anglican community. Perhaps it is meant to implode this way.
 
benedictus2 said:
What I find interesting is Rowan Williams already knows what happened in 2003 and yet here it goes… It is like they can’t help chopping the pillars that hold up the Anglican community. Perhaps it is meant to implode this way.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Rowan Williams was in no way involved in this consecration–he warned us not to do it.

Edwin
 
larkin31 said:
This article is not about sexual mores hurting marriage. It is about the different personality/relationship types and how–when these are mismatched–make permanent marriage a tough road. Only part of this was about sex, and only really about the difficulty when one spouse wants it more than the other (not always the male who wants it more, certainly).
Click to expand...
I think it’s interesting that that’s all you see. What I see is a warped and inadequate view of marriage in the first place–a view that stems directly from the assumption that sexual pleasure is something to be sought as a good in itself rather than as part of a fruitful and faithful marital relationship.

Edwin
 
larkin31 said:
It takes a long time for religions to change, even if it is a change to more openly admit the long-standing reality of actual loving marital practice.
Click to expand...
Just because the secular world increases in depravity and sin does not mean that the truths of faith change.
 
Contarini said:
I think it’s interesting that that’s all you see. What I see is a warped and inadequate view of marriage in the first place–a view that stems directly from the assumption that sexual pleasure is something to be sought as a good in itself rather than as part of a fruitful and faithful marital relationship.

Edwin
Click to expand...
What does “in the first place” mean? Which “first place”? Who? When?

What is wrong with seeking sexual pleasure with a spouse? Can one seek other pleasures with a spouse just for the pleasure? Food pleasure? Aesthetic pleasure? Intellectual pleasure? What is wrong with sexual pleasure with a spouse?
 
DCNBILL said:
Just because the secular world increases in depravity and sin does not mean that the truths of faith change.
Click to expand...
Who says that this is happening in the world? Are you claiming that the world is more sinful today than, say, 3000 years ago? Than 500 years ago? Than 10 years ago? It seems like a totally speculative claim. How would we possibly know this? How would anyone know this?
 
larkin31 said:
What is wrong with seeking sexual pleasure with a spouse?
Click to expand...
Is pleasure the first purpose, the ultimate good, found in the sexual act? Is sexual pleasure the first purpose of marriage? Do you require a spouse or someone else for sexual pleasure?
larkin31 said:
Can one seek other pleasures with a spouse just for the pleasure? Food pleasure? Aesthetic pleasure? Intellectual pleasure?
Click to expand...
I can’t think of any.
 
Stephen168 said:
Is pleasure the first purpose, the ultimate good, found in the sexual act? Is sexual pleasure the first purpose of marriage? Do you require a spouse or someone else for sexual pleasure? ?QUOTE] I did not say this, nor did anyone suggest it, except as a strawman. I said “some of the time” it seems to me perfectly natural to seek pleasure for pleasure’s sake with a spouse. Same with pleasure in food, music, art, and yes…sex. What is wrong with pleasure?
Click to expand...
 
larkin31 said:
Who says that this is happening in the world? Are you claiming that the world is more sinful today than, say, 3000 years ago? Than 500 years ago? Than 10 years ago? It seems like a totally speculative claim. How would we possibly know this? How would anyone know this?
Click to expand...
This is apparent to anyone paying atention to the moral law written on ones soul.
 
I will agree with you to a point. Many married couples who are very happy and have been in a great relationship don’t get to the point in their sex lives where they, every single time they’re about to engage in intercourse, sit back and meditate on the meaning and spiritual purpose and higher purpose of the act they’re about to engage in. Some people are just “in the mood” and it during the act they aren’t praying and doing an analysis of the whole act. I dont’ want to give TMI but let’s face it, most of us don’t overthink our sex acts to this high degree and just enjoy the moment with our spouses. My wife and I love each other to death but we don’t always write in our diaries and meditate on the depth of each act and then reflect afterward of the spiritual, moral, and philosophical significance of said act.

But at the same time we can’t focus solely on pleasure. Love must be strongly present. We can’t get to a utilitarian point of seeing the person as an object.

Sex is a powerful, confusing, and easily-warped activity and it’s for this reason that St. Augustine so hated the sexual side of humanity. It’s so easily warped and ruined.
larkin31 said:
What does “in the first place” mean? Which “first place”? Who? When?

What is wrong with seeking sexual pleasure with a spouse? Can one seek other pleasures with a spouse just for the pleasure? Food pleasure? Aesthetic pleasure? Intellectual pleasure? What is wrong with sexual pleasure with a spouse?
Click to expand...
 
I personally don’t see how this can be justified, it’s certainly not written in the Bible or part of Tradition as to justification of female lesbian bishops but then again Henry VIII threw out both those when he separated from the Catholic Church.
 
Justin1982 said:
I personally don’t see how this can be justified, it’s certainly not written in the Bible or part of Tradition as to justification of female lesbian bishops but then again Henry VIII threw out both those when he separated from the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; if Henry VIII had been given a vision of the last Lambeth conference (and certainly of this monstrosity), Mr. Tudor, upon getting off the boat at Calais, would have walked barefoot to Rome, doing the last few miles on his knees, to give submission to the Pope!
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; if Henry VIII had been given a vision of the last Lambeth conference (and certainly of this monstrosity), Mr. Tudor, upon getting off the boat at Calais, would have walked barefoot to Rome, doing the last few miles on his knees, to give submission to the Pope!
Click to expand...
and you’d be welcome to him. Even the archbishop of canterbury has suggested that guy might be in hell.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I will agree with you to a point. Many married couples who are very happy and have been in a great relationship don’t get to the point in their sex lives where they, every single time they’re about to engage in intercourse, sit back and meditate on the meaning and spiritual purpose and higher purpose of the act they’re about to engage in. Some people are just “in the mood” and it during the act they aren’t praying and doing an analysis of the whole act. I dont’ want to give TMI but let’s face it, most of us don’t overthink our sex acts to this high degree and just enjoy the moment with our spouses. My wife and I love each other to death but we don’t always write in our diaries and meditate on the depth of each act and then reflect afterward of the spiritual, moral, and philosophical significance of said act.

But at the same time we can’t focus solely on pleasure. Love must be strongly present. We can’t get to a utilitarian point of seeing the person as an object.

Sex is a powerful, confusing, and easily-warped activity and it’s for this reason that St. Augustine so hated the sexual side of humanity. It’s so easily warped and ruined.
Click to expand...
Hating the sexual side of humanity is the position of an extremist or a neurotic. Augustine was a rebounding profligate, and became an extremist the other way.

I agree with everything else you write here, and agree that a balance of love and pleasure and bonding and sharing is the ideal. But to claim or suggest that pleasure itself is evil or sinful is wrong. We have pleasure centers for a reason, and if you think that God gave us them, we learn to trust them. They keep us alive, too.
 
larkin31 said:
Hating the sexual side of humanity is the position of an extremist or a neurotic. Augustine was a rebounding profligate, and became an extremist the other way.

I agree with everything else you write here, and agree that a balance of love and pleasure and bonding and sharing is the ideal. But to claim or suggest that pleasure itself is evil or sinful is wrong. We have pleasure centers for a reason, and if you think that God gave us them, we learn to trust them. They keep us alive, too.
Click to expand...
Should a pedaphile learn to trust his “pleasure centers” as he molests a young person?

Pleasure is not an end in itself. When it is used this way humans become objects rather than subjects. Sexual pleasure (certainly a gift from God) when separated from its original purpose, that being a complete mutual self-giving of one to the other, resulting in life, becomes disordered and deformed and, yes, it can become evil or sinful as in the case above. We don’t have to over-analyze the situation each time we get “in the mood”, but we must approach our spouse as a person and not an object of our pleasure. It is then that we can “become one flesh”. Otherwise we might as well be a dog humping someone’s leg.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top