Ship of Fools: CofE pick straight blokes to advise on sexuality

Thread: CofE pick straight blokes to advise on sexuality Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028620

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Official Announcement

and

The initial response from Changing Attitudes

So, five men picked to advise the CofE on sexuality. Four of them Bishops, none of them known to be LGBTQ.

Shall we discuss?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I admit that the list doesn't sound promising. On the other hand, I was at college with Keith Sinclair, many years ago, and remember him as a good chap then. Don't remember gay issues coming up then, and no idea what he has done since, so can't be sure what he is like now.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Don't look now ...

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

[Paranoid]

I may eventually come up with a more nuanced response, but this will do for now.....

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

For me the most telling thing about this is that the CofE doesn't feel the need to hear from women about human sexuality.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

I had no idea that such a panel was in the offing, and haven't seen anything inviting submissions etc. Anyone would think the report had been written before the panel was appointed.....

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am very, very pessimistic about this report.

One of the advisors is Professor Glynn Harrison - he is one of the few psychaitrists left who believes homosexuality to be a mental illness. He is a lay reader colleague at the parish next to mine - one of those evangelical power-houses that attract a congregation of 700, many of whom are aged under 30. He takes the view that we know more about bisexuality now - that leads him to argue that all people have a choice and, because 'the Bible says....' we should all be heterosexual 27/7.

He, and many others, argue that the previous report got it wrong when saying that lay people could, in conscience, enter into 'homophile' relationships if unable to change sexuality but that that clergy can't because they have to be role-models.

I think Colin Coward is hoping that this double standard will be removed - I believe he is right but not in the way he wants. Instead of allowing clergy to enter into gay relationships, I suspect the report will say that neither clergy NOR laity can.

If that happens, then it's about time that we had a Pink Sunday when all LGBTs and those of us in support should boycott church.

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

Keith Sinclair, who I know well, spent many years as vicar of Aston in Brimingham, then was vicar of Holy Trinity, Coventry, a major parish, before being Bishop of Birkenhead.

He is conservative on sexuality - a trustee of the True Freedom Trust, which thinks that homosexuality is an orientation, but that the correct response for Christians is to resist a temptation to have any same sex expression, which they regard as sinful.

So he is a man with his mind made up. Not unsympathetic. But I think that for him, as for a number of other bishops, the thought of thinking differently about this is just too frightening to contemplate.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Being straight isn't a problem in and of itself. The people who most helped me come to terms with my homosexuality were straight.

It's the existing attitude that determines whether there's a problem.

Of course, the irony is that anyone who actually said they were LGBT would be immediately perceived as 'biased'. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

For me, the big mystery is indeed the absence of female voices (straight, bi, lesbian or trans etc). With the number of women serving in Priesthood in the CofE and the number of very capable existing female Advisers to the church, it seems very odd indeed that not one of them could be found to join this panel (or perhaps none were invited?). With the best will in the world, straight men are not going to have an full insight into someone like me.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Course, getting female bishops for the panel might have been a problem ...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Having no females reminds me of Lord Wolfenden, who was initially horrified that there would be women on his committee because he thought that there mere mention of homosexuality would upset them. To avoid upset, he called them 'Palmers' (after the biscuits).

Posted by Donne, Donne, Donne. (# 16761) on :

Surely Leo, Huntleys were homosexuals and Palmers were prostitutes?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Donne, Donne, Donne.:
Surely Leo, Huntleys were homosexuals and Palmers were prostitutes?

Yes, that's right. I got it the wrong way round.

Huntley sounds more macho than Palmer.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Course, getting female bishops for the panel might have been a problem ...

We could loan you a few. In fact one of our L.A. suffragans could cover two bases: Mary Douglas Glasspool is a lesbian. [Biased]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
For me, the big mystery is indeed the absence of female voices (straight, bi, lesbian or trans etc). With the number of women serving in Priesthood in the CofE and the number of very capable existing female Advisers to the church, it seems very odd indeed that not one of them could be found to join this panel (or perhaps none were invited?). With the best will in the world, straight men are not going to have an full insight into someone like me.

Presumably the C of E still holds to Victorian values and doesn't acknowledge the existence of lesbians. Or any women for that matter, unless like children they are seen and not heard.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I don't know much about any of this panel but it does look like the kind of selection which might have been criticised for being old-fashioned and unrepresentative in Geoffrey Fisher's day.

And anyway FFS what is this panel supposed to achieve? Are they hoping that if they keep setting up advisory panels and commissioning reports, sooner or later those pesky gays will get fed up and quietly disappear? What prospect is there that this will give any new insight that hasn't occurred to anyone in the last fifty years?

Ultimately, for all the messing about and fudging the issue, many (indeed I hope most) of us know that there are lots and lots of people out there- clergy and laity- who are gay and not celibate and are also good faithful Christians. By their fruits (no cheap joke intended) ye shall know them. End of.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't know much about any of this panel but it does look like the kind of selection which might have been criticised for being old-fashioned and unrepresentative in Geoffrey Fisher's day.

It might have been criticised for being old-fashioned and unrepresentative in John Fisher's day!

[ 08. January 2012, 22:31: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And anyway FFS what is this panel supposed to achieve? Are they hoping that if they keep setting up advisory panels and commissioning reports, sooner or later those pesky gays will get fed up and quietly disappear? What prospect is there that this will give any new insight that hasn't occurred to anyone in the last fifty years?

Dammit, Johnson, what are all these ruddy queers doing dirtying up the place? In my day they'd have all been shot!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

In fact they'd have done the decent thing and shot themselves ! Those were the days, eh- you could leave a chap in a room with a Webley and a bottle of whisky and he'd know what was expected of him. Nowadays he'd just drink the whisky and get up to God knows what with the bottle- at least according to this website to which I keep finding myself being, um, unaccountably redirected...

[ 09. January 2012, 10:08: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Are they hoping that if they keep setting up advisory panels and commissioning reports, sooner or later those pesky gays will get fed up and quietly disappear?

They already are - one by one, making up a large number.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
many (indeed I hope most) of us know that there are lots and lots of people out there- clergy and laity- who are gay and not celibate and are also good faithful Christians.

But, with official sanction, they are being persecuted, not by the enemies of Christianity but by those who reckon themselves to be pastors of the flock.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Persecuted or 'tolerated' in a nauseatingly kid-gloves, aren't-we-broad-minded, don't-say-too-much sort of way.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Official Announcement

and

The initial response from Changing Attitudes

So, five men picked to advise the CofE on sexuality. Four of them Bishops, none of them known to be LGBTQ.

Shall we discuss?

What's there to discuss? The board is made up entirely of men and there are at least some known homophobes on the board (including one finding excuses to say "not yet"). As such it appears to me to be textbook bureaucratic cowardice - setting up a committee who you know won't say anything at the end of the day and until it says nothing you can say you have a committee looking into things.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Justinian, I think that seems to be a fair assessment, from how it appears. I could of course be proven wrong.
We have 15 female Archdeacons, if memory serves. One could imagine that any of them would have been every bit as capable of a considered opinion on sexuality as the male Bishops, for example.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Persecuted or 'tolerated' in a nauseatingly kid-gloves, aren't-we-broad-minded, don't-say-too-much sort of way.

No, not tolerated, persecuted - some gays refused communion, some vicars living in fear of losing their jobs if discovered democratically elected churchwardens vetoed by their vicar, etc. etc.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Not denying the persecution- just saying that (as a straight man) some of the 'toleration' seems pretty unhealthy to me too.

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

Anything kind of "toleration" that means that people can't really be themselves, but have to be a kind of watered down version of themselves lest horses etc are frightened is just oppression by another name.

This "review" group will get us nowhere at all - perhaps that is why they have been chosen. Lord, have mercy.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

As Spike Milligan would have described the apparent thinking, 'Nothing can go wrong, because we haven't got a plan'

Toleration: The art of pretending people Aren't There, and politely ignoring them in every possible way. "A new command I give to you - tolerate one another, as I have tolerated you". Doesn't have quite the same emphasis of God's intention about it, no.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Toleration: The art of pretending people Aren't There, and politely ignoring them in every possible way.

And thank God for it! That's the glue that holds civilisation together!

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Anything kind of "toleration" that means that people can't really be themselves, but have to be a kind of watered down version of themselves lest horses etc are frightened is just oppression by another name.

This "review" group will get us nowhere at all - perhaps that is why they have been chosen. Lord, have mercy.

The review need a few queers, dykes drag queans to get them on track and get them to unwind and enjoy the whole darn thing together ! (Mind u to be fair all will have had loads of experience in dressing up !)

Otherwise their report will have to go in the bathroom beside the loo as a bit of unintentionally hilarious bog-side reading

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This sig is not mine -

but it's growing on me !

[ 10. January 2012, 17:50: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

quote:
The review need a few queers, dykes drag queans to get them on track and get them to unwind and enjoy the whole darn thing together ! (Mind u to be fair all will have had loads of experience in dressing up !)

They may have experience in dressing up - but they don't look GORGEOUS like we do, darling! Beards, unkempt eyebrows, tragic trousers and shirts, and the shoes, the shoes! The gay ones don't appear to be any better - I guess because if they dressed like gay men people might spot that they were?

It all went west once they stopped wearing gaiters and aprons.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Dead right. A few years ago I organised a visit by all the Archdeacons of the Church in Wales to the National Assembly. You can imagine what a sight 17 (I think it was) Archdeacons would have presented say 60 years ago. But now- dull, dull, dull. Mostly rather forgettable suits*. Very disappointing.

*One- now a Bishop- was in a dinner jacket with stock and collar (it was a daytime visit). I still can't work out whether this was a fairly unworldly thing, with the DJ just being seen as a black suit, or whether he might have been going on somewhere afterwards and wouldn't have the opportunity to change.

[ 11. January 2012, 10:41: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Donne, Donne, Donne. (# 16761) on :

Now now Aelred, surely there are bearded homosexuals? It is just a pity that so few tend to be Anglican clerics.

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:

quote:
The review need a few queers, dykes drag queans to get them on track and get them to unwind and enjoy the whole darn thing together ! (Mind u to be fair all will have had loads of experience in dressing up !)

They may have experience in dressing up - but they don't look GORGEOUS like we do, darling! Beards, unkempt eyebrows, tragic trousers and shirts, and the shoes, the shoes! The gay ones don't appear to be any better - I guess because if they dressed like gay men people might spot that they were?

It all went west once they stopped wearing gaiters and aprons.

We do ! Don't we luv !!!!! [Smile]

**********************************************

Sig not mine etc...

[ 11. January 2012, 19:10: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

quote:
Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:

quote:
The review need a few queers, dykes drag queans to get them on track and get them to unwind and enjoy the whole darn thing together ! (Mind u to be fair all will have had loads of experience in dressing up !)

They may have experience in dressing up - but they don't look GORGEOUS like we do, darling! Beards, unkempt eyebrows, tragic trousers and shirts, and the shoes, the shoes! The gay ones don't appear to be any better - I guess because if they dressed like gay men people might spot that they were?

It all went west once they stopped wearing gaiters and aprons.
We do ! Don't we luv !!!!!

**********************************************

Sig not mine etc...

Aelred darlink - I'd luv your take on TGoV - The Glory of Virginity thread !!!! [Smile]

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

cyn (can I call you that? I can't spell the rest of it - and that with my Welsh blood too - I blush for shame) -

I can't be arsed with the Glory of Virginity thread. I think it is all a lot of nonsense. I reckon Mary was an ordinary young girl, with an extraordinary heart. What happened around the birth of Jesus goodness knows, but after that she settled down with Joseph and had a normal marriage and lots of kids by all accounts. I have a sincere devotion to Our Lady, but not as a perpetual virgin!

People who don't find themselves to be very sexual and those who want to give that side of themselves up for some reason are welcome to do so. But I think it is far more time that we had something on the Glory of Sexual Expression. Hinduism is much better on this kind of thing than we Christians are...

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

Oh - I meant to say - why not use one of the female deans? There are at least four of them; Salisbury, Bury St Edmunds, Leicester and Birmingham. More senior than archdeacons.

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

crynwrcymraeg - I apologise for being so lazy - I will learn how to spell your name

Aelred the Indolent

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
crynwrcymraeg - I apologise for being so lazy - I will learn how to spell your name

Aelred the Indolent

Cut and paste is your friend with long, difficult names [Smile]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Oh - I meant to say - why not use one of the female deans? There are at least four of them; Salisbury, Bury St Edmunds, Leicester and Birmingham. More senior than archdeacons.

And more experienced that a new bishop, i.e. Ebbsfleet - though he is probably more aware of gay men (of a certain type) because of his anglo-catholic background.

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
crynwrcymraeg - I apologise for being so lazy - I will learn how to spell your name

Aelred the Indolent
Cut and paste is your friend with long, difficult names

I had no idea crynwrcymraeg was long and difficult ! It would have been crynwr cymraeg but the space wasn t allowed !

But yes, cutting and pasting has to be a way forward ! [Smile]

************************************************

sig not mine own

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
cyn (can I call you that? I can't spell the rest of it - and that with my Welsh blood too - I blush for shame) -

I can't be arsed with the Glory of Virginity thread. I think it is all a lot of nonsense. I reckon Mary was an ordinary young girl, with an extraordinary heart. What happened around the birth of Jesus goodness knows, but after that she settled down with Joseph and had a normal marriage and lots of kids by all accounts. I have a sincere devotion to Our Lady, but not as a perpetual virgin!

People who don't find themselves to be very sexual and those who want to give that side of themselves up for some reason are welcome to do so. But I think it is far more time that we had something on the Glory of Sexual Expression. Hinduism is much better on this kind of thing than we Christians are...

Hear, hear ! I did find my time as a virgin made the sex great post eventu though !

So perhaps we need a new thread - maybe ?

HOW TO BECOME a VIRGIN

- (with no apolgoies to Quentin Crisp ! )

Feel free to call me Cyn by all means -

btw any paticualr reason ? ! [Roll Eyes]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

sig not mine

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Maybe they should study the Osborne Report which was suppressed 21 years ago for being too liberal and which has only just become available here.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Thanks for the link to the Osbourne Report leo. I've read it through and in some ways I find it rather shocking, not for being 'too liberal' but for the insight it gives into how the Church behaves, or behaved at that time.

I found this (page 117) especially shocking:

quote:
When such behaviour involves breaking the law, eg by sexual involvement with a minor (especially one in his pastoral care) and there is no reason to suspect that the case is known to any but the two of them, the person concerned is warned of the great danger that they and their ministry are in, be moved to penitence, and be advised to terminate the relationship gently but swiftly and to go on leave of absence prior to moving parishes. The provision of pastoral care for the minor is discussed. Immediate resignation may be required of such clergy

This is in a section dealing with what was current practice. Try substituting 'minor' with 'child'. It seems the main concern is to protect the Church and move the priest.

The age of consent to sexual activity for homosexual men was 18 at the time the report was published and perhaps the assumption was of a minor of 16 or 17, but it could be taken as applying to younger boys. There's no recognition of the practice of grooming a child for sex.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Correction; the age of consent for homosexuals was 21 at the time of the report, so a homosexual adult could still be a 'minor'.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Cover it up, move on. Gee whizz, no wonder they've only just dared publish it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I don't think so. That advice was standard practice at the time. Much has happened in child protectiion issues now that we know more about such behaviour.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That advice was standard practice at the time.

In the late 1980s? Not in schools it wasn't.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

It wasn't advice that the report was giving, it was a summary of what the report group had been told by the bishops. It was how bishops dealt with such situations.

My initial shock was the impact of the word 'minor', which today in a sexual relationship would be someone under 16, or under 18 if it was a position of trust. I think by the late 80's the law banning homosexual activity for men under 21 was regarded as unenforceable and the police rarely took action with the 16-21 age group. Reducing the age limit to 18 was a compromise between those who wanted parity between heterosexuals and homosexuals and those who wanted the the age to stay at 21.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That advice was standard practice at the time.
In the late 1980s? Not in schools it wasn't.

Not the same because schools didn't have 21 year olds as pupils.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
It wasn't advice that the report was giving, it was a summary of what the report group had been told by the bishops. It was how bishops dealt with such situations.

My initial shock was the impact of the word 'minor', which today in a sexual relationship would be someone under 16, or under 18 if it was a position of trust. I think by the late 80's the law banning homosexual activity for men under 21 was regarded as unenforceable and the police rarely took action with the 16-21 age group. Reducing the age limit to 18 was a compromise between those who wanted parity between heterosexuals and homosexuals and those who wanted the the age to stay at 21.

The police DID make a lot of arrests between 1964 and 1980 - in fact there were more arrests after homosexuality was partially decriminalised that before. Furthermore, there were many people aged around 20 that had criminal records and were disadvantaged in the job market because of this until the Tories changed the law only last year.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
....... I think by the late 80's the law banning homosexual activity for men under 21 was regarded as unenforceable and the police rarely took action with the 16-21 age group. Reducing the age limit to 18 was a compromise between those who wanted parity between heterosexuals and homosexuals and those who wanted the the age to stay at 21.
The police DID make a lot of arrests between 1964 and 1980 - in fact there were more arrests after homosexuality was partially decriminalised that before. Furthermore, there were many people aged around 20 that had criminal records and were disadvantaged in the job market because of this until the Tories changed the law only last year.

I haven't suggested that the police rarely took action in the 1964 - 1980 period. Up to 1967 homosexual activity was illegal, for all ages. By 1989 when the Osbourne Report was written there was growing support for reducing the age of consent for homosexuals to 16. One argument was that the law was uneforceable because very many gay people were open about their relationships and the police had better things to do than proceed against gay adults having consensual sex. The police used discretion in the cases that came to their attention and another argument was the wide variation in attitudes among police.

By the time the proposal to reduce the age limit was before parliament, cases of alleged discrimiantion against homosexuals were coming before the European Court and it was recognised that there would be difficulty jutifying a higher age limit.

[ 21. January 2012, 19:42: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That advice was standard practice at the time.
In the late 1980s? Not in schools it wasn't.
Not the same because schools didn't have 21 year olds as pupils.

But they did have people under 21 as pupils and people over 21 as teachers.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

But schools are different in terms of the width of the age-gap. The oldest pupil is likely to be 18, the youngest teacher 23 - 5 year gap at a age when personalities develop and change the most.

In the church situation, envisage at 24yo curate and a 20 years and 11 months yo parishioner. - 4 year age gap between two people who are both adults.

I am not defending the practice outlined in the report but I am defending the report generally so I supposed I am finding an excuse for it too.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

leo, you said 'That advice was standard practice at the time in response to the point from amber that this was why the Church hadn't dared to publish the report. Ken said In the late 1980s? Not in schools it wasn't.' You replied 'Not the same because schools didn't have 21 year olds as pupils. Ken's point was that this did not reflect what happened in schools. In other words, sexual relationships between a teacher and a minor were not covered up. I can't make any sense of your response to this or of your further response to my post.

The situation involves what happened in the late 1980's when someone over the age of consent was discovered to be in a sexual relationship with someone under the age of consent. It appears that 'cover up and move on' was the standard practice of the Church, at least with homosexual relationships. Ken's point is that this was not standard practice in schools. At that time all school students would be below the age of consent for homosexual relationships because all would be under 21. So, why is ken's point 'not the same'? The reference in the report is to a 'minor' which could mean any age below the age of consent. Legally the term means anyone below the age of majority, therefore anyone under 18.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I'm out of my depth here - I don;t fully understand.

All I know from working in schools at the time was that I, and most of my colleagues, despised colleagues whom we thought were having a relationship with a pupil, even if in the 6th form.

As for cover-ups, there is one famous case of a teacher, not in my school, who had a relationship with a 6th former and became a very senior figure in the educational establishment. I don't know if it was covered up at the time but the press UNcovered it, yet the person didn't get sacked.

Another teacher, not from my school, had a relationship with a 5th former and it was covered up, partly because the child's mother 'liked' the teacher and didn't want any trouble for him or the school.

That's just anecdotal but that is all I know so I'm going to bow out of this part of the discussion.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for cover-ups, there is one famous case of a teacher, not in my school, who had a relationship with a 6th former and became a very senior figure in the educational establishment. I don't know if it was covered up at the time but the press UNcovered it, yet the person didn't get sacked..

Chris Woodhead's affair isn't "anecdotal". He left his wife and married her.

There however no evidence of any sexual relationship between them while she was still a pupil at the school he taught at.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That's why I used the word 'anecdotal' because I know former colleagues of his from the school in question.

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's why I used the word 'anecdotal' because I know former colleagues of his from the school in question.

Small world - I went to the school in question.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Oooh. I could give you lots of gossip on other teachers who may have taught you. But i won't!

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I'm puzzled!

In their foreword to the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure: Report of the Working Group on an Illustrative Draft Code of Practice, Archbishops Williams and Sentamu make this assertion:

quote:
The House is also concerned that the Church of England retains its character as a body in which conscientious difference of theological judgement is fully respected.

My puzzlement is this. How come such "conscientious difference of theological judgement" is to be fully respected concerning Women Bishops but NOT when it comes to homosexuality?

Surely BOTH are theological judgements over which there are conscientious differences? What have I missed?

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

Because the homosexuality question is whether homosexual men / women should be treated the same as other men / women. The OoW question is whether women should be treated the same as men. See the difference? OliviaG

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Because the homosexuality question is whether homosexual men / women should be treated the same as other men / women. The OoW question is whether women should be treated the same as men. See the difference? OliviaG

Nope. Run that one past me again. It sounds a bit like "you say tomayto and I say tomarto"

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

Because OoW is *just* about women, not men, so it remains acceptable to maintain the "girls have cooties" stance. In constrast, you're not allowed to deny a (gay) man his rights, whatever your personal views. OliviaG

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

quote:
In constrast, you're not allowed to deny a (gay) man his rights, whatever your personal views.

said olivia G

If only!

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

You say potayto and I say potarto?
[Biased]

If I am being uncharitable (heaven forbid!), I would say that the difference is that in the case of the OOW, the archbishops are bending over backwards to accommodate people who have "conscientious differences of theological judgement". But in the case of homosexuality, the archbishops are merely bending over in order to get rogered by the anti-homo (and in many cases virulently homophobic) brigade.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I suspect this is a case of Olivia's 'tone' not entirely coming across on the internet.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I have no doubt.

But on reflection, I realise that I am SOOOO angry about the blatant hypocrisy at work in the Archbishops' statement.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

3rd time lucky: The church has decided it can continue to live with blatant sexism in its leadership, but not discrimination against homosexuals, becauase being female is a greater "sin" than homosexuality. Got it? Am I really the only person who can see this? OliviaG

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
3rd time lucky: The church has decided it can continue to live with blatant sexism in its leadership, but not discrimination against homosexuals, becauase being female is a greater "sin" than homosexuality. Got it? Am I really the only person who can see this? OliviaG

Yes you are, because I can't see where the bishops have said discrimination against homosexuals is unacceptable.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Because OoW is *just* about women, not men, so it remains acceptable to maintain the "girls have cooties" stance. In constrast, you're not allowed to deny a (gay) man his rights, whatever your personal views. OliviaG

There are so many things to say to this it's hard to know where to start.

The whole premise is wrong for a start-off, because it's trapped in the whole world of zero-sum identity politics, in which if you promote the interests of one group it can only be done at the expense of those of another. To me this misses the point entirely, and breathtakingly comprehensively.

In this case, the fundamental problem is that the Church is doing the wrong thing: it's trying to call people rather than trying to discern those who have already had a call from God. Discernment is the church's part in the process, not calling.

Homophobia is a calling card in much more of the church than is misogyny. Not that I regard either as acceptable, still less endearing, but still, that is the fact.

Also, have you never heard of lesbians?

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

[Help]

I obviously can't make my point understood, so I'm stepping back. OliviaG

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, I think Ricardus understood your point but showed that it's based on a wrong assumption. Having a look at sexuality is not necessarily a step towards getting a POSITIVE outcome for homosexuals. If it's aimed at getting a NEGATIVE outcome then the equivocal 'agree to disagree' for women's ordination would mean that women get a better deal than gays, not a worse one.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0