|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
This letter has been issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the principal points are that the current policy on homosexuality has not been changed and there are more importnat things for the church to be thinking about.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GeordieDownSouth
Shipmate
# 4100
|
Posted
Good lad. Very balanced.
How much wieght does the arch bish actually carry in these matters? I'm a poor little methodist here so has no idea how a "proper" heirarchy works ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
----------------------
No longer down south.
Posts: 689 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
This letter has been issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the principal points are that the current policy on homosexuality has not been changed and there are more important things for the church to be thinking about.
I thought this was Rowan hiding behind the parapet until I reached the second half of the letter, and particularly this line:
quote:
...the concentration on this in recent weeks has had the effect of generating real incomprehension in much of our society, in a way that does nothing for our credibility
Translates as 'this is doing more harm than good, and think about what effect you're having on our overall mission'. He is clearly supporting the right of the diocese to choose whomsoever they wish (although an election process would have the advantage of showing wider support for the appointment). As a civil servant, I appreciate the nuances of this letter: as a church-goer, I doubt that either the congregations or the bishops will take much notice. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
That's not to say that Dow & Co. don't personally believe what they say ... but there are other motivations I'm sure.
Would that be Dow & Co of Oporto?
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Wood! WELL BAD! AAAAAAARRGGHHHHHH! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
What this is all about is keepng the conservative evangelical constituency happy so that they won't pull the plug on the money. At the end of the day a bishop has to run a diocese. As an evangelical or just someone watching his back he is less likely to be compromised if he makes PUBLIC statements. That's not to say that Dow & Co. don't personally believe what they say ... but there are other motivations I'm sure.
If this is what is going on then I think its misguided. I think there is an extreme fringe of con. evang. parishes who are spoiling for a fight over quota/ episcopal oversight etc. 'Keeping them happy' is only going to work for so long. They need coming down on like a tonne of bricks.
So, if a parish with a number of curates, such as one in Oxford which is objecting to the Reading appointments, makes threats which call into doubt its loyality to the episcopal ordering of the church, then no more curates should be licensed to that church. Even freehold is not absolute in its power to let the incumbent do what they like. There is a good argument that the kind of threat to schism in the media spotlight that we have seen from some evangelicals is behaviour likely to bring the church into disrepute and unbecoming of a clergyperson. As such action can be taken against the incumbent.
And, if there really is a campaign of hatred concentrated on an individual the CofE retains the sanction of excommunication.
The real issue here is not about sexuality at all. The question is; is the CofE fundamentally an episcopal church, or is it a congregationalist church which has bishops as a matter of administrative convenience?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Wood! WELL BAD! AAAAAAARRGGHHHHHH!
Got a prob with my usages of the lingo, Greg? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Divine Outlaw-Dwarf wrote quote:
The real issue here is not about sexuality at all. The question is; is the CofE fundamentally an episcopal church, or is it a congregationalist church which has bishops as a matter of administrative convenience?
Well, I'm not sure you could say it was not about human sexuality at all, but I certainly agree it's roots lie elsewhere. But in asking whether the CofE is an episcopal church or a congregationalist one, surely we are a congregationalist one? The bishop is the head of the local church after all. If all that holds us together beyond that is a sort of historical sentiment and/or a raft of gentlemen's agreements, then we are surely congregationalist - ? Or to put it another way, we are congregationalists at diocesan level.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
makes threats which call into doubt its loyality to the episcopal ordering of the church, then no more curates should be licensed to that church. Even freehold is not absolute in its power to let the incumbent do what they like. against the incumbent.
It could be argued that the Bishops of Oxford's decision to appoint Jeffrey john is the threat to the Episcopal ordering of the church particularly if you think that a bishop is meant to be a focus of unity for the church and someone who listens to the people who are part of his flock.
I always thought the PCC not the incumbent decided how the churches money was used.
The threat to not license curates is weak because a local church with money could directly employee people and simply ignore any church restrictions.
Personally I think this appointment was unwise but matched by equally unwise responses by some Bishops.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
IanB, I like the idea of 'congregationalists at a diocesan level'!
Nightlamp, given that it is now clear than JJohn's life is ordered in compliance with Issues. How exactly, then, does this appointment represent anything that a reasonable person would consider to be a threat to unity?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Here is a piece written some years back by ++Rowan on homosexuality. Highly salient to the current case I think.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I rather hope that we could have a period of dignified reflection on this topic, but I have my doubts as to whether this will be a possibility.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Let's try a new perspective
quote:
Well, I still don't see why having *been* a practising homosexual should be such an unforgivable blot as to make someone inelgible for episcopal office.
For the period up until 2001 JJ was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry. In 1991 this was ruled to be unacceptable for the CofE, and it was expected that bishops would enforce this. So for 10 years JJ was in clear violation of what was expected of him as a priest. He is now proposing to be a bishop. How can he, when a bishop possibly instruct anyone to do anything when he has rejected episcopal authority for 10 years? The appropriate response would be 'Certainly Bishop, in 10 years time I'll do what you want - till then .....'
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I am not doubting his life is so ordered now but I don't think anyone could argue that Jeffrey John is going to be a focus of unity. If the bishop of Oxford thought he could be then he would seem to have not listened to those whom he consulted when making the appointment.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
But the disunity is surely the fault of those who are criticising him. They are basically saying, we accept your life is ordered in accordance with Issues, and we accept (According to the 'nine Bishops') that the Church is in a period of discernment on this issue, but we don't agree with your views on gay relationships so you cannot be a focus of unity, so there.
This is not reasonable. If I were in, say, Liverpool diocese I would disagree with the Bishop of Liverpool on many issues (arguably more important than homosexuality) - the nature of the sacraments, justification, ecclesiology etc. None of this would prevent me from accepting said Bishop as a focus for unity in the Diocese. Why is the 'gay issue' uniquely divisive?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
For the period up until 2001 JJ was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry.
And what's your source for the exact sexual nature of this relationship 1991-2001 and whether any proscribed 'genital acts' were occurring? I didn't see such explicit information in the press. A link would be welcome.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
What Dwarf said. Do you honestly think, Nightlamp, that catholic or liberal parishes here regard James Jones as anything other than the standard bearer of conservative evangelicalism ? He simply isn't a focus for unity in the diocese in the sense you mean it. We are aware of his position, and disagree with him on most things, but we still manage to co-exist.
It is simply a fact that we live with our differences, and I see no reason for evangelicals in Oxford not to do the same
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
No-one can possibly be a 'focus for unity' by dint of never saying, doing or believing anything that anyone else disagrees with.
A Diosesan Bishop is a 'focus for unity' through sacramental function - he ordains and confirms - and through authority - he licenses and authorises formal minstries within the Diocese. A suffragan or area Bishop may perform these functions and exercise this authority on his behalf if it is delegated to him.
It is a nonsense for anyone to threaten to refuse the sacramental role and authority of his/her Bishop because he is not a focus for unity. The choice is theirs and lies entirely in their own actions.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
And what's your source for the exact sexual nature of this relationship 1991-2001 and whether any proscribed 'genital acts' were occurring? I didn't see such explicit information in the press. A link would be welcome.
L.
This link implies such a relationship existed. In something I read it implied it more by saying that for the past 5 years the relationship had not been sexual.
I do not believe James Jones has actively lived a life which is currently considered to be outside the accepted behaviour of clergy.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But that doesn't mean he is a focus for unity, Nightlamp, in the sense you mean it.
Arrietty's point is correct - in an episcopal church it is what he represents which is the focus of unity.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
I think there is a little bit of overzealous polarising of this situation present in this thread. Whilst I would take some persuading that James Jones has at any point not towed the orthodox teaching of the church, I am perfectly aware of senior clergy whose following of episcopal oversight has been less than perfect, and I doubt that any senior cleric could argue that they have never, on any issue, been at odds with the official position.
The fact is that the particulars of JJ's position are being blown out of all proportion - his teaching in almost any other area is pretty squarely orthodox, as has been said elsewhere in this thread. I don't think that he has been 'out of line' should preclude him from holding a senior position - were he continuing to do so, that would be another kettle of fish. I also think that if one is at all fair to the Bishop of Oxford, he does have a strong record of behaving with integrity, and I don't think it would be fair to accuse him of attempting to subvert episcopal authority.
For myself, I am very aware of the circumstances of one very orthodox evangelical bishop whose personal history in at least one of his previous parishes, which I have attended, is very far short of what one would expect. I doubt that that situation is unknown to the church, and I'd rather hope that no priest is weighed by one element of their life alone, nor unconditionally given a 'free licence' to do as they please.
It would seem to me that the original letter, in focussing upon JJ's opinions, shows rather more light upon the motivation of the writers than I would like to see - an attempt to prejudice debate in their favour than an even-handed approach to episcopal matters. Were that not the case, JJ would not alone be open to challenge. That he is speaks volumes of all the wrong sorts of things.
The episcopal issue is a serious one in its own right, and is a reasonable basis for argument. However, that argument should be independent of churchmanship, rather than biased upon it.
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
Things we can dream about no 17:
'The Church Universal - all denominations - agreed today that it would make no further pronouncement for at least the next 10 years
on matters concerning sexual relationships between consenting adults.'
If only.
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Yes, but they cannot function without a licence.
Once a church says it is refusing to accept the authority of the Bishop it can pretty much do as it likes in the short term. It would be up to the rest of the Diocese to refuse to accept the ministry of a person who was not correctly licensed but you couldn't stop them doing what they chose if they were invited. It happened at Little Gidding I believe. The vicar whose licence was removed due to 'aggravated serial monogamy' which his bishop felt unfitting to his position was invited to carry on unlicensed by his flock and did so for several years. I think that situation was eventually resolved amicably.
As I said above, unity is a choice made by churches and individuals who accept a Bishop's authority. Once a church chooses to opt out, the only thing that will really bring them back IMO are the financial and other practical outworkings of their decision. For example, the C of E system of faculties replaces local council planning regs from which they are exempt. If CE churches are deemed to have opted out of that system by refusing to pay their Diocesan share they would be unlikely to be allowed by local councils to exist without regulation for very long.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
unprecedented announcement
Sean D has changed his mind! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Having read Jeffrey John's statement I am very satisfied by his commitment to an abstinent lifestyle and his sincere regret at the polemical tone of his talk at the AffCath conference. Whilst from a pragmatic point of view I wish his appointment had not taken place at this particular time (in the sense that it has been very divisive etc.) nevertheless given the nature of his humble and loving assurances my concerns have been very adequately expressed and I certainly can no longer see any objection to him being a bishop. The Anglican church is by its very nature diverse and one cannot demand that your bishop agree with you on every particular!
Not that my opinion on the issue matters a great deal (not meaning this sarcastically, it is genuinely the case!) but thought y'all might like to know it is possible for us tub-thumping evos to change our minds!!
However, I strongly suspect that this will not be the end of the matter as churches in the diocese will almost certainly be quota-capping in the near future.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I'm sure you are right. I think a split is now more likely than not, and that James Jones is lining himself up to be the first Archbishop of the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Communion.
I've got to be honest. I want there to be a split. I don't want to be in the same denomination as people with his view any longer. I think the Church of England would be a better place without them.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
Just a note asking people to remember that James Jones and Jeffrey John have the same initials. Seeing as both gentlemen are being discussed, this might be a good thread to avoid referring to people just using their initials.
I was rather shocked to read earlier that for the period up until 2001, James Jones was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry!!
Thanks and Pax, y'all,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Yes, but they cannot function without a licence.
Once a church says it is refusing to accept the authority of the Bishop it can pretty much do as it likes in the short term.
Without being a great canon lawyer, I would think that any diocese with sufficient willpower could drag a parish declaring UDI through the courts.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I've got to be honest. I want there to be a split. I don't want to be in the same denomination as people with his view any longer. I think the Church of England would be a better place without them.
I feel like that sometimes. But then I think, are "they" conveniently grouped into nice, neat, separate parish churches?
Probably not. My church's congregation is (to put it crudely) 70% evangelical, 30% liberal. If the clergy decided to split from the C of E, some of the congregation would be thrilled, others would be devastated. Very very messy and sad business. Who would go where? Friendships and families rent assunder, etc etc.
I had a lovely civilised chat with an ultra-consertive Anglican the other day, and I felt better for it. I like it when people disagree with me. The C of E would be a duller place without "them."
I just hope we can somehow hold it all together.
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
If there is a split, what's the betting that the group who are anti the Bish of Reading will call themselves the TRUE Church of England?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Take your point. But we can't carry on like this. Rowan Williams was right - to the outsider, we appear simply incomprehensible. Nothing but a sad, outdated joke.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
We can somehow hold it all together only if conservative evangelicals play ball as regards Anglican diversity.
The historical accident that is the CofE has always been a 'mixed bag' and only 'works' when people accept it as such. So, an Anglo-Catholic such as myself has to accept that there will be people in 'my church' who deny the real eucharistic presence, preach substitutionary atonement, double predestination and the like. Conversely, those who do these things have to accept that there are people who lean suspciously towards Rome. 'Twas ever thus. Homosexuality is no different in kind to these other issues. It's about the interpretation of Scripture? Well so are debates about the sacraments, justification etc.
Basically, I think, the deal is - you can have Nicky Gumbel if we can have Jeffrey John.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
Nicely put, DOD.
I think they'd call themselves the Real C of E. Has a certain ring to it, don't you think?
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If there is a split, what's the betting that the group who are anti the Bish of Reading will call themselves the TRUE Church of England?
Whilst it would clearly be deeply arrogant (not to say untrue) to do so, this rather assumes that the church which really is the "true" church of england is the ones that didn't "split". It's all a question of perspective. The "splitters" will regard themselves not as breaking away but as being driven out of an apostate church for orthodox belief.
Certainly it will not be that simple, but that is how many people will perceive it.
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Without being a great canon lawyer, I would think that any diocese with sufficient willpower could drag a parish declaring UDI through the courts.
It was tried in somewhere in east anglia the parish won (they got there parish priest back) and the diocese spent a lot of money in court fees.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Just thinking of splits/schisms/whatever. Probably the nearest equivalent was a very long time ago, ie the early Johannine church. They had everybody claiming the Holy Spirit was on their side, the claiming new developing revelations.
If so, maybe the following might be instructive (taken from writers on the Johannine church such as Raymond Brown)
1. It became very ugly indeed
2. There was mutual rejection of orders
3. The minority felt seriously oppressed, and eventually gave up, sinking themselves into the broader developing Catholic church.
4. The larger part, presumably because they had now lost their controlling core, spiralled off into proto-gnosticism and oblivion.
I don't want that to sound negative, even if it does happen to us. The Johannine legacy proved absolutely central in understanding the apostolic inheritance in later controversies. If that happens here, then it is likely that those leaving will probably go to Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and various Evangelical confessions. There may be some continuing church, but that's not really been seen in the UK. Could the positive aspects of the Anglican heritage not be beneficial to other confessions from the inside?
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Oh, I'm quite sure that the remainder of the Church of England would be able to continue if there was a breakaway. It may even be able to make a stronger stand for a definitively 21st century Anglicanism.
I'm seriously questioning what the 'unity' we have is based on. We can trot out the cliches, but I don't think it comes down to a lot more than the name Christian.
Mind you, I've been saying this for years, as some of you know!
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Mike
quote:
I've got to be honest. I want there to be a split. I don't want to be in the same denomination as people with his view any longer. I think the Church of England would be a better place without them.
.... and that's the horn of the dilemma in all of this. The Church of England has valiantly (but with a large measure of hypocrisy) tried to maintain over the centuries that it is the Church for all in England. It's only when that notion hits the umoveable rocks of recusant Catholicism, intractable Puritanism; those who will and won't accept gay / women / atheist / ritualist persons in whatever roles that the whole thing comes under great strain. A body, however, that includes mutually exclusive positions ... positions that strike to the very core of its self-identity and common life ... ceases to exist in unity in any meaningful sense. With the ordination of women, Messrs. Hope (& back up team) and Carey (& back up team) agreed to keep the episcopal bench united and by fudge and fancy footwork keep pro and anti parishes in the pack ... excepting awkward sods like me who left of course. This, I agree, Mike is different. Bishops have broken ranks. Will Rowan be able to carrot and stick them back? I doubt it somehow. Maybe an amicable (as much as possible) separation is the only solution. The Church of England would be the poorer for it but when bishops fall out the writing is on the wall. I suppose the key question is "Are Dow & Co bluffing? Will they strike out of the camp or will they simply do what they usually do after the shouting has petered out ... go and plot in a corner and comfort themselves that at least one part of the Lord's Vineyard is still OK.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
You are right. I fully accept, as a supporter of women priests, that it broke with both catholic tradition and scripture, as did the recent revision of regulations on divorce ( incidentally, masterminded by one of the 9, Winchester). I supported the changes because I believe that reason deemed it appropriate to do.
I think its the sheer hypocrisy that this one is being treated so very differently, when in fact the Scriptural and Traditional barriers to both women priests and divorce are very much stronger, and I honestly do believe that im nay cases, it does come down to a visceral dislike or evsn disgust of gay people and gay sexuality. I think the three 3rd World bishops rather gave that away. No carefully phrased language there, but I have a feeling that is what some - not all - actually think. Dow almost admitted as much on Newsnight. If not, a refutation is required.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Mike
Spot on! Anyone can find scriptural justification for just about anything ... good and bad if they have a mind to. The Tradition of the Church is a better context because that has within catholic parameters taken the essential Scriptural hermeneutic into many different cultures and situations, with, sometimes, surprising results. Perhaps we should ask the bishops in Nigeria whether or not they turn a blind eye to polygamy for example. It can certainly be justified from Scripture. When it comes to gay issues the "yuk" factor is nearly always the driving force behind the negative reactions.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Yes, but they cannot function without a licence.
Once a church says it is refusing to accept the authority of the Bishop it can pretty much do as it likes in the short term.
Without being a great canon lawyer, I would think that any diocese with sufficient willpower could drag a parish declaring UDI through the courts.
This is of course a tangent but an interesting one I think.
It would be exceedingly difficult for a diocese to do anything concerning a parish that declares UDI but doesn't give up its legal privileges at the same time. For example, if a parish declared UDI and refused to pay its diocesan quota (which is the first stage I should imagine) there is almost no sanction the diocese can put into place. Arguably they could withhold the Vicar's stipend if it comes from diocesan augmentation but as a Vicar has the cure of souls and so really can't be sacked and as he is paid a stipend not a salary, I think it would be a very pretty legal case (which, IMO, the Vicar would win). In any case, if a parish has enough money to think that witholding it would make a difference then they would be able to pay the Vicat themselves.
Then they could rescind his licence (but not sack him or evict him from the church or parsonage) but if a parish has taken the UDI route then I can't see a Bishop marching into church and demanding the Vicar sit down and shut up - we're not in ECUSA after all. The same is true about appointing assistant curates. If that parish hates a diocesan that much then they won't care what the bishop and will just pay and house curates themselves. No doubt some 'sound' bishop will come in and go through a pantomime of 'commissioning'. Very little the diocese could do in that situation except protest.
Then they could attempt to deprive the Vicar of his living based around his Ordination and Installation Oath of Obedience to the Bishop. The case would, IMO, hinge aound the words 'all things lawful and honest' and would make very ugly reading in the press.
All this is dependent on the Parson's Freehold. If the dissenting parish only has a priest-in-charge then the diocesan bishop could sack him with three months notice and no questions asked. If he has the freehold then really there is very little that can be done until the Vicar leaves. It would then be up to the Bishop to try to fix it so that the living of the parish is suspended and he can put in a friendly priest.
Of course, if the parish declared UDI they ought to have the courage of their convictions to give up the legal privileges they enjoy as being part of the Church of England.
Yeah, right.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I was rather shocked to read earlier that for the period up until 2001, James Jones was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry!!
Thanks and Pax, y'all,
anglicanrascal
And if you're a subscriber to the school of thought which condemns 'genital acts' but not sexual orientation, how exactly do you know that there were any 'genital acts' going on in that relationship at the time you mention? Have you and Ender's Shadow been up a ladder with a pair of binoculars, do you have a reliable source for the exact nature of the relationship, or are you two just jumping to conclusions and enjoying the frisson of being 'shocked'?
L.
[ 24. June 2003, 14:05: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I thought that the "freehold" was an endangered species. It certainly was back in 1994 when I left, (after getting rid of it by stealth in the previous ten years of course).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I fully accept, as a supporter of women priests, that it broke with both catholic tradition and scripture
Myself, I don't believe that, and when I thought it did, I was unable to accept the validity of their orders.
However, this changed for me and largely due to a discussion here on the Ship, as well as an excellent and helpful discussion with Tomb. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) And I'm also glad of this because I would not have the excellent sermons of Mother Leslie, priest at my own church , but I could only change my belief if it was based on the right reasons -- which, for me, cannot violate Catholic tradition and Scripture (as interpreted through the lens of same).
I have not seen the revision of the rules on divorce thus far, so I don't know if I would accept them as true or not till I do.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
More to the point (and... erm... on topic ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) ), I think that there are a few different issues going on here: (1) the gay issue (and related issues relating to celibacy, orientation, etc.) and whether or not JJ is a good candidate for bishop -- and (2) what the appropriate behaviour is for those who think JJ is not a good candidate. Even if the man were openly and clearly living in a way which I would not think right for anyone -- for that matter, even if I thought his theology was heretical from beginning to end -- I still find the singling of him out this way, by his detractors, really troubling. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Walker
Contributing Editor
# 14
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I was rather shocked to read earlier that for the period up until 2001, James Jones was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry!!
Thanks and Pax, y'all,
anglicanrascal
And if you're a subscriber to the school of thought which condemns 'genital acts' but not sexual orientation, how exactly do you know that there were any 'genital acts' going on in that relationship at the time you mention? Have you and Ender's Shadow been up a ladder with a pair of binoculars, do you have a reliable source for the exact nature of the relationship, or are you two just jumping to conclusions and enjoying the frisson of being 'shocked'?
L.
Oh dear. I think we've been up two different ladders here with two pairs of binoculars and got them all in a twist.
Louise, I think anglicanrascal was referring solely to the potential for misunderstanding when he acronym 'JJ' is used.
--------------------
Cartoon blog / @davewalker
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
socks
Apprentice
# 4458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The threat to not license curates is weak because a local church with money could directly employee people and simply ignore any church restrictions.
Yes, but they cannot function without a licence.
What exactly can't a person who would otherwise be curate do that they could do if they were licenced?
I'm genuinely curious
--------------------
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be shot at from both sides (that's how you know you're doing it right).
Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I was rather shocked to read earlier that for the period up until 2001, James Jones was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry!!
Thanks and Pax, y'all,
anglicanrascal
And if you're a subscriber to the school of thought which condemns 'genital acts' but not sexual orientation, how exactly do you know that there were any 'genital acts' going on in that relationship at the time you mention? Have you and Ender's Shadow been up a ladder with a pair of binoculars, do you have a reliable source for the exact nature of the relationship, or are you two just jumping to conclusions and enjoying the frisson of being 'shocked'?
L.
Oh dear. I think we've been up two different ladders here with two pairs of binoculars and got them all in a twist.
Louise, I think anglicanrascal was referring solely to the potential for misunderstanding when he acronym 'JJ' is used.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
His point is well and truly made!
cheers,
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For the period up until 2001 JJ was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry. In 1991 this was ruled to be unacceptable for the CofE, and it was expected that bishops would enforce this. So for 10 years JJ was in clear violation of what was expected of him as a priest.
Sean D linked to Jeffrey John's personal statement, here , which contains the following quote:
quote:
Nor is it the case that sexual expression was recently abandoned for the sake of preferment. The relationship ceased to be sexual in the 1990s at the time when Issues in Human Sexuality was becoming the policy document by which clergy were being called to abide. I have had, and I still have, an overriding regard for the mind of the Church in its interpretation of scripture, whatever my personal interpretation. This means that I have always submitted the facts of this relationship both to my confessors and to my canonical superiors, and I have obeyed their direction.
In the light of this, I am sure Ender's Shadow will want to withdraw his previous statement. Since his misunderstanding also seems to be the basis on which ES thinks he can't be a bishop, I assume we can look forward to a change of heart by ES that will be as welcome as that of Sean D.
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Spong
What JJ's detractors are demanding of course is evidence of repentance for his former acts, not simply timely abstinence.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
What JJ's detractors are demanding of course is evidence of repentance for his former acts, not simply timely abstinence.
...which, in ++Rowan's words, would be to 'trying to pre-empt, undermine or short-circuit the reflection of the Church as a whole.'.
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
