|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bloody Sentamu
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
This, of course, is the same John Sentamu who rails against all other forms of inequality such as racism. The man who, only two years ago, said in the House of Lords
quote:
It is a matter of deep personal regret and sorrow to me that homosexual people are still diminished, which is anathema to me and to the Primates of the Anglican Communion.
Of course, he conveniently seems to have 'forgotten' that he was one of four bishops (Carey, Hope & Kemp were the others) who refused to sign the Cambridge Accord.
The man is a hypocrite.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Perhaps he meant that because homosexual people are still around to be diminished, they're stil there, and that's what he regrets. What a horrible man he is. Curious list of Bishops, by the way: Carey we would expect, but if Kemp had a downer on gays that'd have ruled out half his diocesan clergy and as for Hope and his 'grey area'...
[ 13. August 2015, 15:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Sentamu could do everyone a favour by retiring ASAP.
His mucky fingerprints are all over a number of disgraceful incidents in recent years. His bullying actions in preventing Jeffrey John from being considered for Bishop of Southwark are well documented. His role as the "puppet master" of Richard Inwood in the Jeremy Pemberton affair is also an open secret. And now this egregious decision.
Are all gay and lesbian Readers to be driven out of the C of E?
I hope that Jeremy Timm's group of parishes (who seem to be strongly supporting him) take action to make Sentamu back down. Unilateral withdrawal of parish share payments might be appropriate.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
The whole thing is sadly all too believable.
Crap temporal establishment
Crap Bish.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
With the apppointment of women to the episcopate, there were cries that they needed to make sure they made a difference. How would something like the following work as a female bishop doing something different:
quote:
Alison, by divine permission, Bishop of Hull to our dearly beloved in Christ Jeremy, Greeting.
We do by these instruments instruct you to disregard the pronouncement of our brother Archbishop, and to grant you permission to officiate in the Howden Team etc. etc.
Though I assume the spine removal process was unchanged...
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
The whole thing is sadly all too believable.
Crap temporal establishment
Crap Bish.
Nothing to do with Establishment. I think Sentamu would behave like this whether the Church were established or not.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think Sentamu would behave like this whether the Church were established or not.
In fact, I suspect he would be worse. The veneer of respectability offered by establishment does so tie his hands sometimes.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I thought this was in line with the current doctrine of the CofE regarding same sex marriage ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Still can't understand why these people want to be part of the same church. It sounds like a marriage made in hell.
Yes, I know we're supposed to be all for unity, but 'if you love someone, set them free'. Disestablish the CofE and they might each go their own way. No more tears.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I thought this was in line with the current doctrine of the CofE regarding same sex marriage ?
There is no current doctrine of the CofE regarding same-sex marriage for lay people. The Bishops have issued guidance saying clergy shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. There is no such rule for lay people in general or lay readers in particular. Even the rule for clergy doesn't prescribe sacking as the appropriate punishment. Sentamu is just being a homophobic git and abusing his power.
Disestablishment would make little difference. The SEC is not established. TEC is not established. The Church in Wales and the Church of Ireland are not established. They're all having to deal with bigots trying to force their homophobia on congregations who don't share it, though some are better at dealing with it than others. No, the real culprit here is the Anglican Communion. There is no point trying to appease provinces who think gay people should be criminalised, and that is what Archbishop Justin has been doing, just like Archbishop Rowan before him.
[ 14. August 2015, 06:08: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
This did make me wonder for a moment whether, sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and all that, and as catholic order seems to be going out of the window in the CofE as elsewhere, ++Barry* here in Wales (who is very inclusive of gay people) should emulate some of the African and South American bishops and offer pastoral oversight to those in other provinces who are having difficulty with their diocesan's position on sexuality. Not seriously, but a nice idle thought.
*His name is Barry. He is not Archbishop of Barry.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Maybe our Primus should do the same. Heck, we should just be able to launch a takeover of Sodor and Mann - I already live in Sodor.
[ 14. August 2015, 06:35: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I genuinely think this might be a stretch too far on +John's part. Although many of the laity have, quite rightly, been appalled at the way clergy in same-sex marriages have been treated by the machinery of the CofE, now "their own" (i.e. laity) have been turned on as well I would expect the response to be much stronger.
Where, oh where, on earth will this stop? Are we to have Archdeacons refusing to swear in Churchwardens who are in same-sex marriages? Are churches to be instructed not to allow those in same-sex marriages to play the organ (good luck!), sing in choirs (good luck!), work with children, act as servers, readers, intercessors, chalice assistants, sidespeople?
It is really difficult to square the sort of treatment meted out to Jeremy Timms with the statement from the House of Bishops Pastoral Statement that:
quote:
Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle.
Clearly, by some bizarre construction "the life of the worshipping community" excludes any sort of leadership position...
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Arethosemyfeet quote:
There is no point trying to appease provinces who think gay people should be criminalised, and that is what Archbishop Justin has been doing, just like Archbishop Rowan before him.
Hear, hear!
But I fear you're wrong about ++Justin: if he's true to his HTB roots then he'll consider the line being peddled by York is just fine.
I agree with you about Sentamu abusing his power and being a git - I'd go further but TIACW.
As for Albertus quote:
This did make me wonder for a moment whether, sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and all that, and as catholic order seems to be going out of the window in the CofE as elsewhere, ++Barry* here in Wales (who is very inclusive of gay people) should emulate some of the African and South American bishops and offer pastoral oversight to those in other provinces who are having difficulty with their diocesan's position on sexuality. Not seriously, but a nice idle thought.
Why so, not 'serious'? After all, the CofE accepted that ++Rowan could be ABofC and as such hold post in the CofE as well as being CC&BW* of the Anglican Communion, so what's to stop ++Barry offering oversight?
Yes, I know that ++Barry, being a reasonable and decent chap is unlikely to put himself forward, but what if he were to be petitioned (in all seriousness) by people in the CofE, laypeople especially? If the CofE can have flying bishops I don't see how they could reasonably refuse people seeking episcopal oversight from someone as orthodox as Cambrensis.
* CC&BW = Chief Cook & Bottle Washer
edited to include:
iamchristianhearmeroar
You are making the mistake of thinking that ++York sees himself as primus inter pares(first among equals), whereas the evidence is overwhelming that he sees himself as primus (bishop or first), period. As for him not being clear on the legal position, I'd doubt that very much - look at his background: not only a lawyer but for a short time a high court judge. He knows exactly what he's doing: The man is a bully.
[ 14. August 2015, 10:47: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for Albertus quote:
This did make me wonder for a moment whether, sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and all that, and as catholic order seems to be going out of the window in the CofE as elsewhere, ++Barry* here in Wales (who is very inclusive of gay people) should emulate some of the African and South American bishops and offer pastoral oversight to those in other provinces who are having difficulty with their diocesan's position on sexuality. Not seriously, but a nice idle thought.
Why so, not 'serious'? After all, the CofE accepted that ++Rowan could be ABofC and as such hold post in the CofE as well as being CC&BW* of the Anglican Communion, so what's to stop ++Barry offering oversight?
Yes, I know that ++Barry, being a reasonable and decent chap is unlikely to put himself forward, but what if he were to be petitioned (in all seriousness) by people in the CofE, laypeople especially? If the CofE can have flying bishops I don't see how they could reasonably refuse people seeking episcopal oversight from someone as orthodox as Cambrensis.
Not serious, only because I disapprove of flying bishops and even more so of bishops from one province intervening in the affairs of another. If some Nigerian or Southern Cone bishop popped up claiming to be responsible for some bunch of homophobes in Wales I'd get cross and that has to work both ways.
Mind you, this all makes me appreciate more and more how fortunate we are here in Wales at the moment, and if I were ++Barry I would certainly be very tempted to drop, unsolicited, a licence for Llandaff diocese in the post to Mr Timms- whether he'd want to use it or not.
[ 14. August 2015, 11:17: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Are all gay and lesbian Readers to be driven out of the C of E?
There was a similar case in the Diocese of Bath & Wells - two women Readers entered into a civil partnership and had their licenses withdrawn.
I've heard many nasty things about Sentamu going back to his Stepney days - that he was an awful bully to his clergy. Some explanations were racist - that his native culture encouraged leaders to be autocrats. I'd hoped that they were from people who had an axe to grind but there is obviously no smoke without fire.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I meant to add that readers are particularly vulnerable because licenses have to be renewed every 5 years - a bishop, incumbent or PCC can object.
It is not a jopb so isn't cverered by employment laws.
There's no avenue of appeal - except to the archbishop (so tough if you are in the northern province) - in any case if you appealed, you'd be very unpopular with the people with whom you want to work.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I sometimes wonder why anyone who happens to be divorced/single/gay/asexual/celibate by choice or vocation would ever want to seek office or minister in the so-called 'Church of England'.
I'm heading steadily for the exit....a little way off yet, but not too far......
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Masha
Shipmate
# 10098
|
Posted
TomM, that might be a bit hard on +Alison.
She's fairly new in post and this could put her in a difficult position. I don't think she'd be able to overrule the Diocesan.
This is a very depressing story. Very depressing indeed.
The CofE loses a valuable minister and faithful Christian. Why is it anything to do with the church anyway, given that this will be a civil marriage? That's very odd.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
What riles me most is that while ++York is happy to flex his muscles about a Reader marrying, he's supine when faced with Melvin Tinker (a vicar in Hull) giving interviews likening homosexuality to Paedophilia - indeed, when that happened Sentamu bent over backwards to defend the objectionable Mr Tinker's right to be loathsome, saying quote:
Clergy of the Diocese are entitled to express varying views on the question of human sexuality. That is the nature of the Church of England. How those views are expressed is central to how we are heard as Church. Our first call is to love God and one another. The principles established in recent Church of England and Anglican Communion statements on these matters are clear: alongside a reaffirmation of traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality, orientation, and behaviour, whatever one’s personal views, there is a Christian duty to offer pastoral care and friendship to all people
I particularly like the last bit - I'm sure Mr Timm and his partner are feeling the full warmth of the Archbishop's 'friendship' at the moment.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Masha says that its asking a lot to expect +Alison to stick her neck out but in fact, if the correct procedure for discipline and readers has been followed, then she must have already been consulted, together with the Dean for Lay Ministry.
As for Masha's other comment quote:
Why is it anything to do with the church anyway, given that this will be a civil marriage? That's very odd.
Well, I think the answer can be found in looking at Sentamu's opinion of SSM; no, not the semi-cuddly flannel that is pushed out by Church House and the whitewash jobs from his Press Office, but by those things he's said or written which he'd probably prefer we'd all forget. Something like the following, which formed part of his formal response to the government consultation on how to introduce equal civil marriage rights for gay and straight couples, and which The Daily Telegraph published in 2012 quote:
If the rights of civil partners are met differently in law to those of married couples, there is no discrimination in law, and if civil partnerships are seen as somehow ‘second class’ that is a social attitude which will change and cannot, in any case, be turned around by redefining the law of marriage. It may even make social attitudes go in reverse gear.
So I submit that to use the law to redefine marriage when there is no legal inequity involved is a misuse of the statute. It must never be used to give comfort or reassurance but to remedy an injustice.
Quite how he, or his press officer, squares that with "offering friendship to all people" and declaring his "personal regret and sorrow" that gay people are diminished is beyond me.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Masha:
TomM, that might be a bit hard on +Alison.
She's fairly new in post and this could put her in a difficult position. I don't think she'd be able to overrule the Diocesan.
This is a very depressing story. Very depressing indeed.
The CofE loses a valuable minister and faithful Christian. Why is it anything to do with the church anyway, given that this will be a civil marriage? That's very odd.
I know - I am entirely in jest. I wouldn't really expect it of her, or anyone else.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I don't suppose, really, that I expected much else than this from Sentamu. I know he's a homophobe and have long suspected that he was a bully. But the idea that it's OK to be in a civil partnership but not in a civil SSM baffles me. If he'd said 'you can't be a reader because you're in a gay relationship' then I would deplore it but I could understand it: it would at elast be a consistent position. But this is weird. It's as if, in the days when the Church wouldn't remarry a divorcee with a living spouse, it had been perfectly happy that a, male reader was cohabiting with a divorced woman but had thrown a wobbly when they decided to get married (in a register offfice).
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
It might open the door to more pressure put on the church to begin performing church weddings (horrors! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ) of these newly legal sorts if positive and involved gay Christians are allowed to remain positive and involved in the CoE while married.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Masha
Shipmate
# 10098
|
Posted
Sense of humour failure on my part, TomM!
Indeed, Albertus, that's what I find so perplexing. It's almost as though he's saying, 'You are using a word I don't want you to use to describe your relationship, and being joined to one another in a ceremony I don't wish you to have, therefore, you no longer have PTO.'
I do not get it.
It's a civil marriage. He's not being asked to conduct the ceremony in York Minster.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And indeed could not, under the current law, even if he wanted to! The statute positively forbids the CofE and CinW to conduct SSMs unless and until they go back to the government and ask them for the bar to be removed. AIUI this is for complicated reasons relating to the Human Rights Act and the different legal status of CofE/ CinW marriages from those of other churches.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If he'd said 'you can't be a reader because you're in a gay relationship' then I would deplore it but I could understand it: it would at elast be a consistent position.
But it isn't in line with 'Issues in Human Sexuality' which says that clergy are NOT at liberty to enter into gay relastionships but LAY people may if their conscience....
To treat LAY Readers as if they are clergy is against the guidance.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Changing Attitude are discussing this a lot, for obvious reasons. It is totally not in keeping with Issues and is deeply hypocritical.
I personally would be opposed to an inclusive flying bishop - to me the concept is so deeply un-Anglican - despite being in Winchester diocese...
Bishops Finger I am a little surprised you mentioned celibate and asexual people - it's not a problem as far as I know within the CoE and is especially not a problem for religious, many of whom are ordained. That is an interesting question though - religious are not obliged to be obedient to Issues, but does that change if they are ordained?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, presumably Religious are expected to be celibate anyway, aren't they? Or are you including tertiaries and so on in that?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Oh no, wasn't thinking of tertiaries. But the word on the ground is that people are being expected to *agree* with Issues, not just assenting to obeying it.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Masha:
Why is it anything to do with the church anyway, given that this will be a civil marriage? That's very odd.
Isn't marriage seen as a 'creation ordinance' so a marriage is a marriage - whether civil or religious? Unless you are going to take the line that all non-Christian marriages aren't really marriages.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
That's extremely un-Anglican. I mean, AIUI clergy don't even have to *agree* with the XXXIX Articles, just assent to them, so why Issues should have any higher status than that is beyond me! And as for Religious- surely the answer is just 'I'm keeping my pants on anyway, so there's nothing for anyone else to worry about'.
[ 15. August 2015, 07:10: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Whatever our views on this, there are inconsistencies all ways round. I know gay clergy who are co-habiting with 'unbelieving' partners with the full knowledge of their bishop.
So things are pretty mixed.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Which seems to send out the message that co-habitation (with "no questions asked") is "OK", but making it properly legal and moral by getting married is a real "no-no" ...? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Which seems to send out the message that co-habitation (with "no questions asked") is "OK", but making it properly legal and moral by getting married is a real "no-no" ...?
Ah, but if they're just cohabiting or in a civil partnership then you can put your fingers in you ears and pretend they're just good friends and most certainly aren't getting any closer than 6 inches from each other and certainly aren't having sex. But, if they're married then they absolutely must be bonking non-stop.
As ever the position of the CofE hierarchy reminds me of this sketch from the early 80s (which is depressing in itself in that we've not made much progress in 30 years):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJy2UucDcDw
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
This 'pretend nothing's happening' thing has been going on for a long time. As a potential ordinand in Southwark- then as now hardly a hotbed of homophobia- in the early 1990s, I remember feeling quite miffed that while it was made clear to me that if I and my girlfriend were to move in together then I could wave goodbye to the discernment process for the time being, I knew or knew of at least two men in cohabiting gay partnerships who were accepted for ordination, and ordained, at about that time. Ah yes, but of course, they were just sharing flats, weren't they?
I suppose you might be able to kid yourself the same way about civil partnerships- just enduring the property rights and so on. If you were stupid and wilful and hypocritical enough to do so.
I much prefer the attitude of the TEC Bishop who,IIRC, when SSM was introduced in his state,actually ordered his cohabiting gay clergy to marry or separate- because that's what he would have told straight cohabitees to do. Can't remember who it was - someone in New York State I think (do they have SSM?) but it was mentioned somewhere on these boards.
[ 15. August 2015, 11:05: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Gamaliel quote:
Whatever our views on this, there are inconsistencies all ways round. I know gay clergy who are co-habiting with 'unbelieving' partners with the full knowledge of their bishop.
Is that all? I knew one bishop who had a sexual relationship with his unbelieving partner.
In better news on the public face of bishops, Nigel Stock praught a fine sermon at the VJ service in St Martin-in-the-Fields. Don't know anything about him but today, at least, he gave bishops of the CofE a good image.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The Right Reverend John Gladwin (previous Bishop of Chelmsford) is still a patron of Changing Attitudes, as is the Right Reverend John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, as was the Right Reverend David Stancliffe (late of Salisbury) and the Right Reverend Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales. Not all the English bishops are unsupportive; there are supportive bishops outside Wales.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
This 'pretend nothing's happening' thing has been going on for a long time. As a potential ordinand in Southwark- then as now hardly a hotbed of homophobia- in the early 1990s, I remember feeling quite miffed that while it was made clear to me that if I and my girlfriend were to move in together then I could wave goodbye to the discernment process for the time being, I knew or knew of at least two men in cohabiting gay partnerships who were accepted for ordination, and ordained, at about that time. Ah yes, but of course, they were just sharing flats, weren't they?
I suppose you might be able to kid yourself the same way about civil partnerships- just enduring the property rights and so on. If you were stupid and wilful and hypocritical enough to do so.
I much prefer the attitude of the TEC Bishop who,IIRC, when SSM was introduced in his state,actually ordered his cohabiting gay clergy to marry or separate- because that's what he would have told straight cohabitees to do. Can't remember who it was - someone in New York State I think (do they have SSM?) but it was mentioned somewhere on these boards.
Churches are used to turning a blind eye randomly to certain discreet behaviours that they don't officially approve of. This is where the hypocrisy lies.
The only way to avoid the hypocrisy, ISTM, is for the CofE (or any other church) publicly to change its theology on sex in general, let alone sexuality.
This would certainly clear the waters. It would also clear the decks of reactionary and conservative members, which would make the church smaller.
TEC seems better able to cope with this. I read somewhere that being surrounded by a dominant evangelical Christian culture has made it easier for TEC to distinguish itself, not just on this matter but on others. England is more secular, and its Non-conformist and sectarian Christians are weaker. The CofE therefore feels it has to be all things to all men, which leads to dissatisfaction in several quarters.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think that's true, SvitlanaV2 - so whatever the CofE does it 'can't win' ...
@l'Organist ... you'll have to forgive me, I'm relatively new back in the CofE after many years out in the new churches and the Free Church sector ...
Where, of course, these things aren't issues at all ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Not a problem.
Anyway, what have I done? Or are you surprised at someone with something nice to say about a bishop?
I'm not saying that +Nigel played a blinder but he spoke from the heart and made sense without being either upsetting or patronising, which isn't that common among the current crop of bishops; +London manages it from time to time but then he's not typical.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You haven't done anything, L'organist ...
I was simply making the point that whilst Sentamu may be throwing his weight around on this issue, other bishops seem to turn a blind-eye ... not only to readers and lay-people co-habiting with same-sex partners but to clergy too - and that despite the rules.
I'm not saying that's right or wrong, simply that it begs the question as to why there are rules on these matters if some bishops are prepared to turn a blind eye to them whilst others go beyond them - as Sentamu appears to have done ...
I'm just wondering about the consistency of it all ... but then, we are talking about the Church of England ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Masha
Shipmate
# 10098
|
Posted
I am of the opinion that a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. My point is that, as Leo has demonstrated, lay people do not have to abide by the same 'rules' as clergy.
Does the ABY have the right to dismiss someone for being part of a legal marriage he doesn't agree with? Really?
Similarly, no bishop opposed to OOW would be allowed to dismiss a female priest in their diocese because they did not agree with the validity of their ordination service. They would not be expected to take part, but they cannot withdraw PTO because they disagree, surely? That's what I was getting at. Oppose in principle (if you must), but don't get shitty about someone doing something they are allowed, by CofE regulations, to do and refuse to allow them to minister.
Why is that circumstance different?
Posts: 308 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Its different because its being done by ++York and the rest of the bishops won't tussle with him, either in private or public. Part of the reason for that is they think that because he trained as a lawyer and was, briefly, a judge, he (a) can be relied on to correctly interpret rules and laws; and (b) in any case, they'll do almost anything to avoid public rows or differences. (A colourful Welsh expression is They'd pee in their hat to keep the peace.)
And there's your answer Gamaliel: the 'rule' (its only guidance, actually) is meant to apply to ordained clergy but ++York is choosing to apply it to a Lay Reader. It also seems likely that he's ignored the formal disciplinary structure for withdrawal of PTO from a Reader, probably relying on those whose role he has usurped or ignored being too decent (or British) to make a fuss.
As I've said before - its bullying, simple and far from pure.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
++York is choosing to apply it to a Lay Reader. It also seems likely that he's ignored the formal disciplinary structure for withdrawal of PTO from a Reader, probably relying on those whose role he has usurped or ignored being too decent (or British) to make a fuss.id before - its bullying, simple and far from pure.
I had an email today informing me that a trustee of Changing Attitudes, who is also a reader, has been threatened by the Bishop of Bristol should be get married.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm not saying that +Nigel played a blinder but he spoke from the heart and made sense without being either upsetting or patronising, which isn't that common among the current crop of bishops; +London manages it from time to time but then he's not typical.
Although I am inclined towards pacifism, I too thought Bp Nigel did a good job this mormning AND, pertinent to this thread, I note that a prominent part in the service was taken by a lay Reader.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
++York is choosing to apply it to a Lay Reader. It also seems likely that he's ignored the formal disciplinary structure for withdrawal of PTO from a Reader, probably relying on those whose role he has usurped or ignored being too decent (or British) to make a fuss.id before - its bullying, simple and far from pure.
I had an email today informing me that a trustee of Changing Attitudes, who is also a reader, has been threatened by the Bishop of Bristol should be get married.
I wonder if such Bishops are treating lay people with official Bishop sanctioned positions functionally as Priests in the piety which is expected of them, since arguably, they are representing the Church when they preach no less than a Priest is in some aspects of his or her ministry.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
simwel
praying fool
# 12214
|
Posted
In better news on the public face of bishops, Nigel Stock praught a fine sermon at the VJ service in St Martin-in-the-Fields. Don't know anything about him but today, at least, he gave bishops of the CofE a good image. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 74 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
