 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay bishops in the C of E, but .....
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
This news story in the BBC announced the decision by the House of Bishops to allow gay clergy in civil partnerships to be become bishops. BUT (you knew there was going to be a but, didn't you?) only if they promise to remain celebate.
Imagine the uproar if this was to be replicated the other way around. The average age of consecration these days must be in the early 50's, when hetero-sexual couples would expect to be happily sexually active, so why not gay couples?
This is the worst of all worlds for the C of E, IMNSHO. (1) Upset the con-evos and others by recognising gay clergy might be allowed to become bishops. (2) Upset the gays by allowing them to become bishops, but only if they promise to remain celebate. (3) Make the C of E look reactionary to the wider world, just after they have decided that women can't be bishops.
I am not sure whether to ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) or ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
However, I can see that if any reforms are going to take place in the CofE, they have to happen by baby steps rather than seismic shifts. This is one more small step along the road to true equality.
People will get to know, and like, their gay bishops because they will already be out there doing the job and meeting people in the parishes. Gay bishops will, over time, become accepted, and then the matter of their celibacy (or not) will cease to matter so much. There was a time when a divorced / remarried priest filled everyone with horror, but now they have become accepted and commonplace.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I don't know many hetero-couples in their mid-50s who are still happily sexually active. You must know all the ones where the bloke's on Viagra, Traveller.
I agree with you though that it's the worst of both worlds and reminds me of the various initiatives put forward by successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland from the 1970s onwards - each one was pretty much guaranteed to piss off both sides.
[ 04. January 2013, 15:45: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
The Church of England has developed the posture of sitting on the fence into an art form. It seems to me that the church thinks that if you give something to everyone (something, not everything they want or think is right, mind you) we can all live together in peace and harmony. This one step may be followed by others (raising expectations or fears, depending on your postion), but this is as far as the church is prepared to go at the moment.
He who sits on the fence tears his trousers.
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
You'd think....but two words: Jeffrey John.
[reply to Leo, ie: I don't think the con evos have any grounds for being pissed off, but many of them will, not I hasten to add including this one, in so far as I am still a con evo]
[ 04. January 2013, 15:49: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
This news story in the BBC announced the decision by the House of Bishops to allow gay clergy in civil partnerships to be become bishops. BUT (you knew there was going to be a but, didn't you?) only if they promise to remain celebate.
In terms of the 2005 statement nothing has changed... strangely the documentation on civil-partnershiped Bishops being ok has been out there if you desired to read it that way.
But good on the CofE publicly coming out and saying this! Maybe Jeffrey John might get the position of Bishop he deserves after having been denied in the past...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't understand why the con evos object to celibate gays.
Surely it is not a sin to be 'tempted' as conevos would understand it.)
You'd think they'd be glad at their honesty. (Presuming they really are celibate, of course.) Gay bishops in the past have had to pretend they are not gay, which can't be phisically, psychologically or spiritually healthy at all.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
The Church of England has developed the posture of sitting on the fence into an art form. It seems to me that the church thinks that if you give something to everyone (something, not everything they want or think is right, mind you) we can all live together in peace and harmony. This one step may be followed by others (raising expectations or fears, depending on your postion), but this is as far as the church is prepared to go at the moment.
He who sits on the fence tears his trousers.
I suppose that I am hopeful of further steps. Any kind of step is movement.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I would say that it is a tiny shift in the right direction. I guess the acid test is "Will Jeffrey John now be made a bishop?" After all - he has freely stated that his relationship has been celibate for some time.
If you are wondering - the answer is "no". No matter what else, Jeffrey John will never become a bishop. So this step is not that significant after all. Some might even say that it's actually a step BACKWARDS. There are already gay bishops in the C of E. Colin Coward (of Changing Attitude) seems to know who they all are. And none of them has EVER been asked to comment on their celibacy or otherwise. What has happened up until now is that The Powers That Be knew who were the gay clergy becoming bishops and just turned a blind eye. And as much as this is a dishonest practice, it actually worked to some degree.
Now there is no easy way forward. If you are known as gay and being considered for bishop, you will face a degree of invasive and embarrassing scrutiny that is quite unlike anything a "straight" bishop will have to deal with.
Of course, this is not the final position. The slow move towards full acceptance of gays and lesbians within the C of E will continue, regardless of the desperate rear-guard action being fought at the moment.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
The CofE must really want to see the Anglican Communion totally collapse.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
The logic of it is the same logic that is applied to women in the episcopate. If women can be priests, they can be bishops. The orders are indivisible.
Similarly, if there is a specific standard applied to those who are priests (that if they are in a civil partnership, they should be celibate), then the same standard should obtain in relation to those who are bishops, on the principle of indivisibility. So, at one level, it's a non-story that the BBC are running with. The House of Bishops has merely extended what many gay people see to be an inappropriate and intrusive standard for priests to those being considered for the episcopate. Conservatives will conversely see this as a step along the road towards the goal that they fear.
Has anything changed? Probably not.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The logic of it is the same logic that is applied to women in the episcopate. If women can be priests, they can be bishops. The orders are indivisible.
Similarly, if there is a specific standard applied to those who are priests (that if they are in a civil partnership, they should be celibate), then the same standard should obtain in relation to those who are bishops, on the principle of indivisibility. So, at one level, it's a non-story that the BBC are running with. The House of Bishops has merely extended what many gay people see to be an inappropriate and intrusive standard for priests to those being considered for the episcopate. Conservatives will conversely see this as a step along the road towards the goal that they fear.
Has anything changed? Probably not.
The house of bishops is as complacent and immoral as ever.
But we are all living our own lives as we choose- even making love -
even the lgbt priests and bishops.
The backlash over Women Bishops Not - will be visited on your antigay policies and rhetoric too
Just keep digging !
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fluff
Shipmate
# 12871
|
Posted
This ruling is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my entire life. The C of E seems determined to make a laughing-stock of itself. It is both absurd and insulting to gay and lesbian people. I really do find that this sort of thing totally discredits Christianity as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it just has no moral integrity at all, does it? And how is it to be enforced and monitored? Any thoughts anyone?
Thank God for Peter Tatchell!
Posts: 109 | From: South England | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
The C of E is just SO dishonest.
And due to this dishonesty it will anger
a) homosexual bishops who must pretend they are celibate
b) the orthodox who know full well that 'don't ask and don't tell' is impossible to police and simply gay bishops by the back door (pardon the pun)
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't understand why the con evos object to celibate gays.
Surely it is not a sin to be 'tempted' as conevos would understand it.)
You'd think they'd be glad at their honesty. (Presuming they really are celibate, of course.) Gay bishops in the past have had to pretend they are not gay, which can't be phisically, psychologically or spiritually healthy at all.
Reform UK and Anglican Mainstream still maintain that homosexuality is something that could and should be "cured" altogether. They don't believe someone who remains "uncured" is fit to be bishop at all, even if they don't act on it. The Africans they used as allies when Jeffrey John's appointment was first announced, generally agree. Together they make for a very shouty minority.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Well Gene Robinson + is retiring this year. I guess the celibacy rule still prevents him from crossing the atlantic and becoming a CofE bishop.
At one level, this seems designed for Jeffrey John. On the other hand, I suspect that the higher-ups in the CofE have no intention of ordaining him bishop and are simply trying to ward off any potential legal challenge he might pursue.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Reform UK and Anglican Mainstream still maintain that homosexuality is something that could and should be "cured" altogether. They don't believe someone who remains "uncured" is fit to be bishop at all, even if they don't act on it.
But more Evangelicals are coming to realise that gayness is not incompatible with evangelicalism. Not just the Open Evos either, some fairly conservative ones are coming to that conclusion too.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Oh absolutely. There is this fine article in the Independent: Happy, clappy, and out of the closet: Evangelicals who say being gay is OK
I think much has changed since the Jeffrey John fiasco. Partly, is the shift in opinion wrt homosexuality amongst evangelicals, particularly younger ones. I also think that the African influence in CofE affairs has diminished somewhat. The Anglican Communion overall seems to have entered an uneasy truce. The outcry when the Diocese of Los Angeles consecrated a "out" lesbian paled in comparison to the reaction to the consecration of VGR or appointment of JJ. Despite the criticism of Rowan Williams was from both right and left, he may have succeeded at dousing the flames on this issue and keeping us together. Only time will tell. Meanwhile, may gay Christians, particularly in developed countries seem content to wait it out as the tide continues to change.
[ETA: See you've posted the same link.]
[ 04. January 2013, 18:12: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fluff
Shipmate
# 12871
|
Posted
I was on Gay Pride marches in the late 70s. People have had to FIGHT for their RIGHTS, DIGNITY and RESPECT in the face of hostility and oppression, over a long period of time, to get to even where we are now. Where was your precious church in all of that? What support did it offer?
It is horrible to see the REAL LIVES of lesbian/gay/trans people being used as a political football by these ecclesiastical bureaucrats, these spiritual politicians. It seems for them other peoples' lives are merely a theory, or a political football in the fight for some kind of power. It is also horrible to see GLBT people debated and pored over by some of the revolting homophobes that you are STILL happy to have contribute to Ship of Fools, in the name of diversity of opionion. When are you lot going to WAKE UP? Can't you see that GLBT people are real, actual living people? When are you going to act as if we are? What's wrong with you?
I certainly do have a spiritual life, but I'm not going to take it to the C of E or any Christian group, am I? And I'm right not to join, surely?
This is just one more insult among many many previous. The general population has moved on. Attitudes towards homosexuality have improved markedly during my lifetime, and I've met heterosexual people - normal, working class people - who have a genuine effort to raise their consciousness on this issue and gain greater tolerance and love. I can assure you the man at the corner shop is showing greater enlightenment than your House of Bishops. The C of E weds itself to the bigotries and ignorance of the past - and the past is where it's heading at this rate. Thank heavens.
Posts: 109 | From: South England | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
A step in the right direction or a sop to appease? You pays your money and you takes your choice.
How is it, though, that the Bishops had the power to decide this but not to accept women? (genuine enquiry)
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
The C of E is just SO dishonest.
And due to this dishonesty it will anger
a) homosexual bishops who must pretend they are celibate
b) the orthodox who know full well that 'don't ask and don't tell' is impossible to police and simply gay bishops by the back door (pardon the pun)
So being anti-gay is a measure of orthodoxy now, is it? ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
I was on Gay Pride marches in the late 70s. People have had to FIGHT for their RIGHTS, DIGNITY and RESPECT in the face of hostility and oppression, over a long period of time, to get to even where we are now. Where was your precious church in all of that? What support did it offer?
It is horrible to see the REAL LIVES of lesbian/gay/trans people being used as a political football by these ecclesiastical bureaucrats, these spiritual politicians. It seems for them other peoples' lives are merely a theory, or a political football in the fight for some kind of power. It is also horrible to see GLBT people debated and pored over by some of the revolting homophobes that you are STILL happy to have contribute to Ship of Fools, in the name of diversity of opionion. When are you lot going to WAKE UP? Can't you see that GLBT people are real, actual living people? When are you going to act as if we are? What's wrong with you?
I certainly do have a spiritual life, but I'm not going to take it to the C of E or any Christian group, am I? And I'm right not to join, surely?
This is just one more insult among many many previous. The general population has moved on. Attitudes towards homosexuality have improved markedly during my lifetime, and I've met heterosexual people - normal, working class people - who have a genuine effort to raise their consciousness on this issue and gain greater tolerance and love. I can assure you the man at the corner shop is showing greater enlightenment than your House of Bishops. The C of E weds itself to the bigotries and ignorance of the past - and the past is where it's heading at this rate. Thank heavens.
While I agree with some of your points, there are Christian groups who affirm LGBTQ relationships - Quakers, MCC, significant wings of other denominations including the CoE. Both CoE churches I attend (at home and at university) all LGBTQ people, not just celibate ones.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
This ruling is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my entire life. The C of E seems determined to make a laughing-stock of itself. It is both absurd and insulting to gay and lesbian people. I really do find that this sort of thing totally discredits Christianity as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it just has no moral integrity at all, does it? And how is it to be enforced and monitored? Any thoughts anyone?
Thank God for Peter Tatchell!
Would that be the same Peter Tatchell who in the past has defended adult men having sex with boys as young as 9 years old?
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
This ruling is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my entire life. The C of E seems determined to make a laughing-stock of itself. It is both absurd and insulting to gay and lesbian people. I really do find that this sort of thing totally discredits Christianity as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it just has no moral integrity at all, does it? And how is it to be enforced and monitored? Any thoughts anyone?
Thank God for Peter Tatchell!
Would that be the same Peter Tatchell who in the past has defended adult men having sex with boys as young as 9 years old?
What is your evidenbce ? Many thanks in advance.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
Thank God for Peter Tatchell!
Would that be the same Peter Tatchell who in the past has defended adult men having sex with boys as young as 9 years old?
I imagine that is the one... I certainly know of no other Peter Thatchell... and his P.I.E. connections are something all LGBT people should be fearful of being labelled with...
Certainly a man who shares my overarching desires but certainly someone I would never be seen on a stage with...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
This ruling is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my entire life. The C of E seems determined to make a laughing-stock of itself. It is both absurd and insulting to gay and lesbian people. I really do find that this sort of thing totally discredits Christianity as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it just has no moral integrity at all, does it? And how is it to be enforced and monitored? Any thoughts anyone?
Thank God for Peter Tatchell!
Would that be the same Peter Tatchell who in the past has defended adult men having sex with boys as young as 9 years old?
What is your evidenbce ? Many thanks in advance.
His own words:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311193/PETER-HITCHENS-Question-Who-said-Not-sex-involving-children-unwanted-abusiv e-Answer-The-Popes-biggest-British-critic.html
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
A step in the right direction or a sop to appease? You pays your money and you takes your choice.
It is the furthest step they could possibly make, as long as "Issues in Human Sexuality" (linkable from the House of Bishops web page) remains the definitive CofE position. Issues in human sexuality.
Until they realise that this document is deeply flawed the CofE can go no further. "The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience," (Paragraph 5.2) The 1991 report says that reasoned reflection agreed with the traditional view of sexual orientation. Did they not speak with any psychologists?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
A step in the right direction or a sop to appease? You pays your money and you takes your choice.
It is the furthest step they could possibly make, as long as "Issues in Human Sexuality" (linkable from the House of Bishops web page) remains the definitive CofE position. Issues in human sexuality.
Until they realise that this document is deeply flawed the CofE can go no further. "The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience," (Paragraph 5.2) The 1991 report says that reasoned reflection agreed with the traditional view of sexual orientation. Did they not speak with any psychologists?
Issues' is a study guide - and waaaay out of date.
It is nothing more than that and has no more than authoirty than that.
Btw what authority does a study guide have ?
The Church of England is about to reap the harvest of its hypocracy, inaction and cruelty on this as on women bishops - only more so.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fluff
Shipmate
# 12871
|
Posted
Oh dearie me. More of this gay-people-all-really-pedophiles malarky, which we seem to have heard rather a lot of recently on Ship of Fools, haven't we? I will point out that I am a gay man and NOT a pedophile, and needless to say cited Mr Peter Tatchell as an example of someone who has been vocal in support of GLBT rights. Which is more than can be said for the churches, eh?
Jade Constable:
quote:
While I agree with some of your points, there are Christian groups who affirm LGBTQ relationships - Quakers, MCC, significant wings of other denominations including the CoE. Both CoE churches I attend (at home and at university) all LGBTQ people, not just celibate ones.
Thank you acknowledging what I've said in my post. I do take your point, but I feel identifying as a Christian is not possible for me at the moment, given the current and past record of Christianity on this issue. If I did so I really feel I would spend my whole time apologizing for Christianity's appalling dreadfulness, and indeed for being associated with it. I realize there are significant exceptions, but the general attitude of Christians and the Churches to GLBT people is simply atrocious. As Ship of Fools postings so often amply demonstrate. I feel it would be positively masochistic of me to join a church, and would involve standing around with a whole bunch of awful homophobes the whole time, attracting prejudice which I could more easily avoid. So I keep my prayers between myself and God.
Posts: 109 | From: South England | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
I feel it would be positively masochistic of me to join a church, and would involve standing around with a whole bunch of awful homophobes the whole time, attracting prejudice which I could more easily avoid. So I keep my prayers between myself and God.
If you don't want to join a church, you clearly shouldn't, but I will have to strongly disagree that you would necessarily attract prejudice. I am married to a man, but I would never attend a church where a LGBTQ person or couple would attract prejudice. Mind that does rule out many churches that I would never attend twice, but that still leaves an awful lot of churches. I have never found myself short, certainly. Perhaps you don't want to attend church, even if there is a welcoming one nearby, because you've had too many bad experiences. It's certainly a good enough reason for me--it's your life, so any reason is good enough for me--but I guess I think it a bit unfair to the church to presume it's hard to find a welcoming church.
ETA: If you lived in say rural Texas, I would take back everything I have said about not a problem to find a welcoming church. I do not claim it is true for everywhere.
[ 04. January 2013, 21:21: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Issues' is a study guide - and waaaay out of date.
It is nothing more than that and has no more than authority than that.
And yet the CofE hierarchy constantly treat it as authoritative. If it's not, then we have the 1987 General Synod motion before it as our standard. Doesn't help your case.
Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
Oh dearie me. More of this gay-people-all-really-pedophiles malarky, which we seem to have heard rather a lot of recently on Ship of Fools, haven't we? I will point out that I am a gay man and NOT a pedophile, and needless to say cited Mr Peter Tatchell as an example of someone who has been vocal in support of GLBT rights. Which is more than can be said for the churches, eh?
Jade Constable:
quote:
While I agree with some of your points, there are Christian groups who affirm LGBTQ relationships - Quakers, MCC, significant wings of other denominations including the CoE. Both CoE churches I attend (at home and at university) all LGBTQ people, not just celibate ones.
Thank you acknowledging what I've said in my post. I do take your point, but I feel identifying as a Christian is not possible for me at the moment, given the current and past record of Christianity on this issue. If I did so I really feel I would spend my whole time apologizing for Christianity's appalling dreadfulness, and indeed for being associated with it. I realize there are significant exceptions, but the general attitude of Christians and the Churches to GLBT people is simply atrocious. As Ship of Fools postings so often amply demonstrate. I feel it would be positively masochistic of me to join a church, and would involve standing around with a whole bunch of awful homophobes the whole time, attracting prejudice which I could more easily avoid. So I keep my prayers between myself and God.
I am LGBTQ, as are many other Shipmates (any homophobic posting on the Ship gets heavily criticised and not just by LGBTQ members). Most of us attend churches where our sexuality isn't a problem. Of course there is homophobia within the church but there are many churches that are not in the least bit homophobic, and plenty of others that have sympathetic leadership if not a 100% sympathetic congregation (as sometimes happens with churches with liberal leadership that have a more elderly congregation). You have your own reasons for not attending church which I do not wish to pry into, but rest assured, there are many LGBTQ-friendly churches even in denominations which aren't entirely welcoming. I'm a member of two churches and am never surrounded by a bunch of awful homophobes!
(I don't know where you mean by 'southern England' but if you live in Chichester diocese (as I used to), you do have my sympathy on the LGBTQ issue!)
[ 04. January 2013, 23:04: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
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
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Issues' is a study guide - and waaaay out of date.
It is nothing more than that and has no more than authoirty than that.
Btw what authority does a study guide have ?
Never mind out of date, it has always been wrong on several points.
As for the authority: It has as much authority as the bishops give it, it is on the front page of the House of Bishops website as an authoritative statement.
Progress in the CofE is always painfully slow. But there will be no more progress whist Issues is given this prominence.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
ETA: If you lived in say rural Texas, I would take back everything I have said about not a problem to find a welcoming church. I do not claim it is true for everywhere.
Heck, even in rural Texas, you can find a gay friendly church nowadays. Gay Affirming Churches - Texas
I take the point that Christianity has not had a good record wrt LGBT people, but neither has the psychological community. Until about 100 years ago, the idea that one would self-identify and have a community of LGBT persons was as foreign as having a Black Socks-Wearing Community or a Left Handed Community.
For most of history (and in many non-western societies today) people were expected to marry and have as many kids as possible to provide security and family income, while even cultures that officially were anti-homosexuality generally looked the other way if more same sex-inclined people were discreet about their homosexual relationships.
It's only in the past 100 years when industralization and the development of the welfare state diminished the need to marry and have children that gay people could pursue such relationships openly and exclusively. Our institutions have been slow to adapt - as institutions generally are.
It was only in 1973 that the psychological community recognized that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness or something that needed to be "cured". It was about that time that the first Christian congregations welcomed openly gay people into their midst in places like San Francisco, New York and London. Since then, the psychological community has certainly moved faster than the church to "normalize" gay people and our relationships, but both institutions are moving in the same direction.
As a gay person myself, I know how toxic the church can be - even officially welcoming ones. I had to take a break from church while living in Dallas, TX because even though the clergy of my Episcopal church I attended were open and welcoming, most of the congregation were not. If you can't find a good fit, it may be in your best interest to sit it out until you can.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
[QUOTE] I don't understand why the con evos object to celibate gays. Surely it is not a sin to be 'tempted' as conevos would understand it.) [QUOTE]
Because, as Anglican Mainstream said yesterday, Civil Partnerships are "ambiguous". If you interpret them as not necessarily sexual unions, then accepting them is giving support to some kind of special value placed on a same-sex friendship, and that scares AM, Reform and the Church of England Evangelical Council shitless, because that interpretation, as they well know, is not how CPs are commonly understood. Most people in society think of them as a kind of gay marriage, with the intimacy inside them that assumes a sexual relationship.
And con evos just can't bear the idea of the Church approving anything like that. Which is why Michael Lowson the Chair of the CEEC wants much more intrusive questioning of clergy in civil partnerships as to the nature of their relationship, and in particular as to whether is it sexual.
This is all revolting and abhorrent to decent people, but it is a measure of how rattled and angry they are at this development
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Are they going to also require celibacy for new straight bishops? Surely that would be a nice gesture of reconcilation with the Catholic Church. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
According to the BBC, Jeffrey John was considering legal action against the CofE:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20917616
If John is appointed bishop relatively quickly, I'm at a loss for words. Substantively, I think Jeffrey John would make an excellent bishop. However, given this news, the recent change would appear to be a blatantly political move by the CofE to dodge an embarrassing legal situation.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
According to the BBC, Jeffrey John was considering legal action against the CofE:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20917616
If John is appointed bishop relatively quickly, I'm at a loss for words. Substantively, I think Jeffrey John would make an excellent bishop. However, given this news, the recent change would appear to be a blatantly political move by the CofE to dodge an embarrassing legal situation.
Well we thought he might have been elevated to the See at Bangor back in '08, but that came to nothing in the end... what with three (or is it only 2, I can't remember now) of the 6 privincial Bishops retiring maybe there might be consideration again...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
The C of E is just SO dishonest.
And due to this dishonesty it will anger
a) homosexual bishops who must pretend they are celibate
b) the orthodox who know full well that 'don't ask and don't tell' is impossible to police and simply gay bishops by the back door (pardon the pun)
Just a second, doesn't the RC church have married priests - especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister". How is that any less ridiculous ?
And then there is the married guy who is the ordinary of the Ordinariate - who really isn't a bishop honest guv - but is almost indistinguishable in practice.
Fudge is not an anglican only issue.
[ 05. January 2013, 09:28: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
[QUOTE] I don't understand why the con evos object to celibate gays. Surely it is not a sin to be 'tempted' as conevos would understand it.) [QUOTE]
Because, as Anglican Mainstream said yesterday, Civil Partnerships are "ambiguous". If you interpret them as not necessarily sexual unions, then accepting them is giving support to some kind of special value placed on a same-sex friendship, and that scares AM, Reform and the Church of England Evangelical Council shitless, because that interpretation, as they well know, is not how CPs are commonly understood. Most people in society think of them as a kind of gay marriage, with the intimacy inside them that assumes a sexual relationship.
And con evos just can't bear the idea of the Church approving anything like that. Which is why Michael Lowson the Chair of the CEEC wants much more intrusive questioning of clergy in civil partnerships as to the nature of their relationship, and in particular as to whether is it sexual.
This is all revolting and abhorrent to decent people, but it is a measure of how rattled and angry they are at this development
But the view that marriage is only a marriage when it has been consolidated with sexual interaction is false in itself - whilst marriage was the only legitimate place in which sexual intercourse could occur, it does not necessarily mean that it did - Augustine proposed his views on the marital status (I will dig out the reference I assure you) where he said that unmarried virginity was best, followed by a sexless marriage then at the bottom of the queue was a sexual marriage.
To accept celebate gay men and lesbians in CPs (even Church sanctioned marriages) would fit neatly into Augustines second category and should therefore not be viewed as wrong as it is a relationship of friendship and mutual support rather than sexual carnality.
As for 'policing' those in CP's unless the ConEvo's are to demand cameras in Rectory's and Vicarages up and down the country it is an unenforceable position and 'DADT' will continue to be the formal and informal position taken.
Better scruitiny at selection stage could only be achieved, IMO, through polygraphs which seems like overkill and really does undermine trust between Brothers and Sisters in Christ and seems to chip away at the 'Discerning God's Will' aspect of things.
Since I doubt the Church is going to go down the route of polygraphs then asking the question a little more firmly and repeatedly is not going to do much - I can say the sentence - 'no, I do not have sexual relations with my Partner etc. etc.' till I'm blue in the face and nobody asking would know if I was being honest or not...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Presumably there is an ethical issue in being prepared a) to lie about this and b) to deliberately seek to gain by deception a post the church does not doctrinally permit ?
In other words, DADT is ethically wrong on both sides.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Just a second, doesn't the RC church have married priests
Yes. Mainly Oriental Catholic and former Anglican ones. They are not required to be sexually abstinent.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
Not that I've ever heard of.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
And then there is the married guy who is the ordinary of the Ordinariate - who really isn't a bishop honest guv - but is almost indistinguishable in practice.
Being a bishop is an on/off switch thing. He's distinguishably not one. The very reason he was not made a bishop is that he was already married. There is no requirement for him to be - or to pretend to be - sexually abstinent.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
Not that I've ever heard of.
Happened in the 1980s under the last pope, whilst I was in secondary school. It was quite big news at the time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Nor is it the only situation in which the RC church asks people in what would be expected to be a sexual relationship in the secular view, to do this.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
