Question about Anglican Clergy Controversies

[runningdude]

I know that this is probably a delicate topic, but it is one that has confused me for some time. It seems to me that there is more “outrage”, for lack of a better term, over the ordination of openly homosexual priests and bishops, than there was for the ordination of female clergy. It is this just a misunderstanding on my part? Or it is more of reaching the breaking point?

In part, I don’t quite understand the apparent greater anger over homosexuals serving as clergy as to me, given this bad situation I would unquestioningly chose a “gay” male bishop over a female “bishop”, as at least a homosexual male can be validly ordained. His life style though would still be, to put it lightly, problematic.

I guess I’m just looking for some perspective as to how Traditional Anglicans see this phenomenon and how you react and respond to it.

 

[East_Anglican]

Here in England it depends on which one of the two conservative wings of the CofE you are in. Evangelicals tend to be for the ordination of women and against the ordination of homosexuals while the Anglo/Catholics tend to be for the ordination of homosexuals but against the ordination of women. The absolute liberals tend to be somewhere in between. But of course it’s not as simple as that.

I personally only have a problem when the ordinand is a ‘practicing’ homosexual.

In the U.S ECUSA/TEC tend to do what it likes regardless of scripture, tradition, reason or what the rest of us think.

 

[Barbkw]

I can accept a chaste same sex attracted priest. The same way that I can accept a chaste heterosexual priest. Being faithful to chastity is the key.

However, when a chaste same sex attracted priest decides that he no longer needs to be faithful, and that he needs to be a member of the homosexual community - endorsing and promoting the acceptance of homosexual sex acts and marriage between same sex persons - that is gravely against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

That is failing to properly interpret Sacred Scripture (preaching a false Gospel) and a false retelling of Scripture.

Protestant churches are being torn apart over the issue.

 

[sherri315]

That is a good point. In the bible, it clearly states that women should not be heard in church. Thus, it should be impossible for a woman to be a Christian and priest/bishop. A homosexual priest could exist so long as he did not entertain the thoughts that plagued him. The devil will try to destroy as much as he can and one can not stop thoughts from entering one’s mind on occasion, but acting on them would be a sin and a reason to not be part of the clergy.

 

[1ke]

I know that this is probably a delicate topic, but it is one that has confused me for some time. It seems to me that there is more “outrage”, for lack of a better term, over the ordination of openly homosexual priests and bishops, than there was for the ordination of female clergy. It is this just a misunderstanding on my part? Or it is more of reaching the breaking point?

I think you must not be old enough to remember the controversy in the US when women were first ordained priests in the mid/late 70s or the controversy regarding female bishops in the mid 80s. As a former Episcopalian, I remember both as a young adult growing up in the EC during the 70s and 80s.

In part, I don’t quite understand the apparent greater anger over homosexuals serving as clergy as to me, given this bad situation I would unquestioningly chose a “gay” male bishop over a female “bishop”, as at least a homosexual male can be validly ordained. His life style though would still be, to put it lightly, problematic.

Well that completely depends on who you are talking to, and what flavor of Anglican or Episcopalian they happen to be.

 

[East_Anglican]

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[Eutychus123]

I know that this is probably a delicate topic, but it is one that has confused me for some time. It seems to me that there is more “outrage”, for lack of a better term, over the ordination of openly homosexual priests and bishops, than there was for the ordination of female clergy. It is this just a misunderstanding on my part? Or it is more of reaching the breaking point?

In part, I don’t quite understand the apparent greater anger over homosexuals serving as clergy as to me, given this bad situation I would unquestioningly chose a “gay” male bishop over a female “bishop”, as at least a homosexual male can be validly ordained. His life style though would still be, to put it lightly, problematic.

I guess I’m just looking for some perspective as to how Traditional Anglicans see this phenomenon and how you react and respond to it.

Here in CT, there are a number of Traditional Anglican churches which are not a part of the Episcopal Church. They became separated as a result of Women’s Ordination and the introduction of the 1979 prayerbook.

 

[nhylan]

It largely depends on who are you are talking to. I think, scripturaly speaking, the argument that Anglicans used to decide to ordain women is far far more compelling that the one they use to ordain practicing gays. I don’t disagree with the TEC’s decision to do it, maybe just the manner and the speed at which they did it. I have zero problems with ordaining women, I know there are some on here that do and that’s fine with me, everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A perfectly valid analysis, question, and concern. I happen to share your perplexed feeling as to why homosexual ordination draws ire but women’s ordination is optional and in many areas, considered wonderful.

It comes from buying into modern sensibilities and the Oprah Winfrey generation. It comes from the 60’s and women’s lib thinking that everything involving both sexes is always a competition and an issue of equality rather than roles given us by God Himself.

I would NEVER seek to defend women’s ordination as it sickens me completely. but trying to get in the heads of the liberal wing of Anglicanism, but I think the rationale for women’s ordination is Paul’s statement that there is no Greek, no Jew, no Scythian, no male, no female in Christ. The problem is, that statement Paul is making is about SALVATION not ORDINATION! It’s about the afterlife and our ability to be SAVED by Christ, which is not tied to our race and gender, which of course is true! But it has nothing to do with ordination. One need only read the Scriptures and the omissions as well as the next 1900 years of Church history and theology to figure out women’s ordination is nonsense.

But with homosexuality, it’s blatantly forbidden and condemned in the OT and NT and overtly mentioned as evil, tougher to justify.

I happen to think both are absurd and I find the ACNA’s willingness to let ++Duncan and his cronies ordain women to be just plain stupid and disappointing as heck!

I know that this is probably a delicate topic, but it is one that has confused me for some time. It seems to me that there is more “outrage”, for lack of a better term, over the ordination of openly homosexual priests and bishops, than there was for the ordination of female clergy. It is this just a misunderstanding on my part? Or it is more of reaching the breaking point?

In part, I don’t quite understand the apparent greater anger over homosexuals serving as clergy as to me, given this bad situation I would unquestioningly chose a “gay” male bishop over a female “bishop”, as at least a homosexual male can be validly ordained. His life style though would still be, to put it lightly, problematic.

I guess I’m just looking for some perspective as to how Traditional Anglicans see this phenomenon and how you react and respond to it.

 

[runningdude]

I think you must not be old enough to remember the controversy in the US when women were first ordained priests in the mid/late 70s or the controversy regarding female bishops in the mid 80s. As a former Episcopalian, I remember both as a young adult growing up in the EC during the 70s and 80s.

Ah, I didn’t realize female ordination went back that far (Definitely not old enough to know about it first hand!). That explains part of why the homosexual outrage seems so fresh.

Do “most” Episcopalians believe that woman are ordained in the sacramental sense or in a symbolic sense.

[/QUOTE]

 

[runningdude]

Here in CT, there are a number of Traditional Anglican churches which are not a part of the Episcopal Church. They became separated as a result of Women’s Ordination and the introduction of the 1979 prayerbook.

Must have been terrible to have gone through

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Definite barf bag material…and a major major obstacle toward ecumenical dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox, huge mistake and foolish decision…

Must have been terrible to have gone through

 

[Eutychus123]

Definite barf bag material…and a major major obstacle toward ecumenical dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox, huge mistake and foolish decision…

Yes, and also a very slippery slope.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

About as slippery as a bounce house with Wesson Oil on it! Women’s ordination was the true beginning of the “unraveling” of Anglicanism. It truly started the downward spiral. The Continuers right off the bat had the foresight and vision to know what it would lead to. The ecumenical damage it did, the progression downward into the sinful lifestyles condoned, the arguments and civil wars of polity. Total disaster.

And one would think that when the ACNA formed that these folks would have the wisdom and common sense to START OVER!!! and just drop WO for good but nope, ++Duncan made it a centerpiece of his agenda to lay hands on hairspray.

Yes, and also a very slippery slope.

 

[Eutychus123]

About as slippery as a bounce house with Wesson Oil on it! Women’s ordination was the true beginning of the “unraveling” of Anglicanism. It truly started the downward spiral. The Continuers right off the bat had the foresight and vision to know what it would lead to. The ecumenical damage it did, the progression downward into the sinful lifestyles condoned, the arguments and civil wars of polity. Total disaster.

And one would think that when the ACNA formed that these folks would have the wisdom and common sense to START OVER!!! and just drop WO for good but nope, ++Duncan made it a centerpiece of his agenda to lay hands on hairspray.

TEC was already too far gone by the time that ACNA was formed. ACNA only wants to turn the clock back to just before Gene Robinson.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

An accurate analysis IMO. The ACNA had the opportunity to squash and stomp the many errors TEC had accumulated over the years: women’s ordination, gay theology, liberal attitudes about divorce, minimizing Christ’s salvific role and looking at other religions as equals, pro-choice views, liberation theology, happy-clappy Calvary chapel type garbage, etc. Problem is they let the women’s ordination continue, the Calvary chapel nonsense, weak Church polity continue, etc.

You’re right. They’re just TEC with some anti-gay sentiment. They had their chance. And they had the chance to align with OCA but they won’t drop the filioque, calvinism, and women’s ordin. It’ll be to their detriment, sadly.

TEC was already too far gone by the time that ACNA was formed. ACNA only wants to turn the clock back to just before Gene Robinson.

 

[ImReallyNice]

I suppose it doesn’t bother me. I know the scripture says one way but I don’t know. It seems with the protestants making basically anybody pastors, and the Catholics letting child molesters run their church, we have far more problems than men in consensual relationships or women leading services. I’d rather a female priest, or a monogamous homosexual priest, over that of a child molester priest, or that of a protestant pastor any day of the week.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is an unfair oversimplification of Catholicism really. Not all Catholic priests are lunatic pedophiles out to molest little Billy in the sacristy. So saying you’d prefer a woman “priest” to a molester is setting up a pretty bad strawman either-or I’d say!

Bottom line is neither one should be in the Church clergy so setting up such a comparison is moot. Women aren’t “qualified” to be priestesses just because they don’t tend to molest as much? Also, you say “monogomous gay” priest. So now you’re condoning sodomy by a member of Christ’s clergy? A man having anal sex and confecting the Eucharist at Mass the next day? I say PASS.

None of the above.

I suppose it doesn’t bother me. I know the scripture says one way but I don’t know. It seems with the protestants making basically anybody pastors, and the Catholics letting child molesters run their church, we have far more problems than men in consensual relationships or women leading services. I’d rather a female priest, or a monogamous homosexual priest, over that of a child molester priest, or that of a protestant pastor any day of the week.

 

[BernadetteM]

I suppose it doesn’t bother me. I know the scripture says one way but I don’t know. It seems with the protestants making basically anybody pastors, and the Catholics letting child molesters run their church, we have far more problems than men in consensual relationships or women leading services. I’d rather a female priest, or a monogamous homosexual priest, over that of a child molester priest, or that of a protestant pastor any day of the week.

You really need to look closely into the Episcopal church as they have many pedophiles also, they just hide it better. Been there and done that. Also so do all denominations, it is not a religious problem, it is societies problem.

When you find that perfect sinless denomination please let us all know. Sorry to sound uncharitable, but people need to get their facts straight before making unfounded accusations about one particular church over others.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[ImReallyNice]

This is an unfair oversimplification of Catholicism really. Not all Catholic priests are lunatic pedophiles out to molest little Billy in the sacristy. So saying you’d prefer a woman “priest” to a molester is setting up a pretty bad strawman either-or I’d say!

Bottom line is neither one should be in the Church clergy so setting up such a comparison is moot. Women aren’t “qualified” to be priestesses just because they don’t tend to molest as much? Also, you say “monogomous gay” priest. So now you’re condoning sodomy by a member of Christ’s clergy? A man having anal sex and confecting the Eucharist at Mass the next day? I say PASS.

None of the above.

I know but I figured the pope by now would have taken out the cardinals who support pedophilia. He lets them keep their positions though. So I guess you have a church with women and gays and a church with cardinals and popes who support pedophilia. Lutherans maybe?