 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay bishops in the C of E, but .....
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
It'll be interesting if Jeffrey John does get offered a pointy hat after the media have had their little feeding frenzy over this.
But if I were in his position, I'd keep silent while the arguments were going on. I'd keep silent while they deliberated over which point hat to give me. And when the offer came through, I'd respond: quote:
Dear Sir,
thank you for your kind offer. Unfortunately, were I to accept such a position of leadership within your ugly little Church, I would be ashamed to show my face in public. Now FUCK OFF.
Yours in Christian love and fellowship, etc.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
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.
It's definitely news to me.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
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.
You are quite right on both points a & b - I wasn't passing a moral judgement, or condoning or advocating anyone do as such unless they have had a vision from Heaven and have squared the whole thing with God Himself - just presenting what the reality is.
When DADT has been the position forwarded by the Hierarchy that set the other rules as well the moral dilema would ultimately rest with them for having a) given an 'official' position, and then b) supporting LGBT people into the Ordained ministries and so quietly going about working against that official position.
If my Bishop says that 'this is the official position however...' is the moral issue to land at my feet or at His feet?
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
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.
I don't understand what your point is here. Catholics are not allowed to divorce and remarry unless they can obtain an annulment. There's not much of a secret about that. Catholics who defy this teaching are requested not to receive the Sacrament unless they've repented and been absolved - whether they're still sexually active or not. All this is pretty open and public - notoriously so. I'm not seing the "fudge" here.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
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.
Whether JJ was considering legal action or not, I suspect that the C of E legal eagles knew that they were in a terrible position. To apply a different set of standards to bishops than to priests (and by so doing, actively discriminating against gays), left them WIIIIDE open to being spanked in court. They wouldn't have had a leg to stand on and they knew it.
So, in one sense, this is just "tidying up a few loose ends", as Pete123 seems to present it. But part of the problem is the way that this has been done - by what are effectively passing comments in an otherwise boring release about the last House of Bishops meeting. Nobody thought how this was going to play in public and hence (yet again!) the C of E creates its own PR disaster.
You have to hand it to the Powers That Be. Just when I thought that the C of E's credibility couldn't get any lower, they've gone and proved me wrong.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
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.
It's definitely news to me.
A cursory trawl of the net produced nothing I could identify as directly related to your recollection - but then it was cursory. Got any links?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
...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 real crunch will come if and when the government introduces SSM's - will the CofE require priests and bishops, who in the eyes of the civil law are legally married to a partner of the same sex, to be celibate? The gloves really will come off then, I fear. For example, will there be a set of opt-outs for parishes similar to those for women priests?
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
...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 real crunch will come if and when the government introduces SSM's - will the CofE require priests and bishops, who in the eyes of the civil law are legally married to a partner of the same sex, to be celibate? The gloves really will come off then, I fear. For example, will there be a set of opt-outs for parishes similar to those for women priests?
Probably based on pastoral concerns... As a Bishop already has a duty to place appropriately a Curate it may require some curates having fewer options than others, and as in CinW and CofE the principal operator in appointing a Parish Priest is the parish itself then most parishes could avoid the issue certainly around SSM parish clergy.
Oncein the Episcopate, I feel that the celibcy thing would probably rumble on as an 'acceptable' fudge until such time as other arrangements are made and provision given (a case of turning the flying Bishops into anti-women & anti-gay Bishops)
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
And as if by magic, this BBC news article appears.
Although the Priest goes on to say:
"He added that gay clergy in civil partnerships in Wales are not asked 'if we do anything naughty in bed'"
which, whilst not being a cleric/Bishop I cannot comment there, but for a layman is not quite true, since I have been asked several times to clarify if I do anything 'naughty' in bed.
[ 05. January 2013, 13:31: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
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 Doublethink:
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.
Eh, no.
--------------------
"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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
So, correct me if I am wrong here, but haven't the conservatives in the church always said that they have no issue with a priest or Bishop being gay so long as they are not sexually active? Now that they seem to get their wish in writing, why the hulabaloo?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So, correct me if I am wrong here, but haven't the conservatives in the church always said that they have no issue with a priest or Bishop being gay so long as they are not sexually active? Now that they seem to get their wish in writing, why the hulabaloo?
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but an official position then becomes a line from which you cannot then move backwards from, or certainly can then only move backwards with great difficulty, and is a line on which you can only remain where you are or move forwards which would be, IMO, where the problems for ConEvo's arise...
They have got a statement they sort of wished for, but didn't think through the implications of getting that statement and are now in dissarray because it has hit them... no more turning back to 'the good old days' but the direction is only forwards to more liberation...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So, correct me if I am wrong here, but haven't the conservatives in the church always said that they have no issue with a priest or Bishop being gay so long as they are not sexually active? Now that they seem to get their wish in writing, why the hulabaloo?
As far as I can see, there are only two possibilities:
(a) The conservatives think that any gay man who claims to be in a celibate relationship is a liar, or
(b) We're back with the old idea that it's okay to be gay as long as you're slightly ashamed of it. If you're happy with it, or want to celebrate it, then that ceases to be okay.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So, correct me if I am wrong here, but haven't the conservatives in the church always said that they have no issue with a priest or Bishop being gay so long as they are not sexually active? Now that they seem to get their wish in writing, why the hulabaloo?
As far as I can see, there are only two possibilities:
(a) The conservatives think that any gay man who claims to be in a celibate relationship is a liar, or
(b) We're back with the old idea that it's okay to be gay as long as you're slightly ashamed of it. If you're happy with it, or want to celebrate it, then that ceases to be okay.
To be honest I think point 1 has been the position all along - maybe quietly held whilst spouting out the things contained in point 2 - speculation is rife amongst the ConEvo's I know about what goes on in people's bedrooms without them having a shred of evidence... It's all very stereotypical terrace street gossipy ('Ooooh, Maureen did you see her net curtains twitching last night... she's upto something, I just know it! But of course don't tell anyone *nudge, nudge; wink, wink.*')
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Point one doesn't seem to make a lot of sense though. You could just as easily assume that all married Bishop's and priests are liars and that they will probably commit adultery, be paedophiles, steal from the church coffers, do lots of things that will bring shame on the church....or wait a minute...
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
What in the world makes you expect any of this to make sense?
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
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.
It's definitely news to me.
I can't chapter and verse it, having seen the item in the English-language version of Herder Correspondence (that shows my age!) many years ago in the Milltown library in Dublin, but there was a German cleric, and an Austrian one, who did this. One was under Piux XI and the other under Pius XII.
I have a recollection of hearing of an example in the Two Sicilies under Charles III, but I'll be damned if I can be more specific. I really should make note of these things.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
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.
It's definitely news to me.
I can't chapter and verse it, having seen the item in the English-language version of Herder Correspondence (that shows my age!) many years ago in the Milltown library in Dublin, but there was a German cleric, and an Austrian one, who did this. One was under Piux XI and the other under Pius XII.
I have a recollection of hearing of an example in the Two Sicilies under Charles III, but I'll be damned if I can be more specific. I really should make note of these things.
As far as I'm aware the only instance in which a married Latin Catholic man can advance to Holy Orders (bar the well know exceptions for convert clergy) is if his wife chooses to voluntarily enter a convent. I have no idea when the last time that occurred was though, not for centuries I'd imagine. Certainly "co-habiting" in a Josephite manner would be out of the question.
The German you mention under Pius XII may have been a Lutheran pastor who converted.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Apropos of that, I can recall a "human interest" feature article in the Washington Post when I was a lad of 10 to 12 years (so in the 1960s) about a couple in late middle age who both decided they wanted to enter religious orders and did so. Indeed, I think this had occurred some years earlier, perhaps in the 1950's. So, although, the husband was a lay brother in his order, and had not sought ordination, the scenario was certainly similar to what CL proposes, but quite recent rather than centuries ago.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
There was a discussion about this on the PM programme today. The anti-gay woman who spoke said, among other things:
* of course you couldn't believe any gay who claimed to be celibate
* most of the population shared the same feeling of "revulsion" that she had when she thought about homosexuality
* she had recently been in New York, where the sight of men kissing had "turned her stomach"
If this is the level of argument that the anti-gay brigade is going to advance, then I think they're going to be laughed out of court!
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Solly
Shipmate
# 11919
|
Posted
May one assume that all types in holy orders only have sex in the missionary position and then only for re-creational purposes never for recreation?
Posts: 70 | From: Sussex UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There was a discussion about this on the PM programme today. The anti-gay woman who spoke said, among other things:
* of course you couldn't believe any gay who claimed to be celibate
* most of the population shared the same feeling of "revulsion" that she had when she thought about homosexuality
* she had recently been in New York, where the sight of men kissing had "turned her stomach"
If this is the level of argument that the anti-gay brigade is going to advance, then I think they're going to be laughed out of court!
I heard that discussion. There was a certain guilty pleasure in hearing Giles Fraser splutter over where to start with that nutter.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
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.
I don't understand what your point is here. Catholics are not allowed to divorce and remarry unless they can obtain an annulment. There's not much of a secret about that. Catholics who defy this teaching are requested not to receive the Sacrament unless they've repented and been absolved - whether they're still sexually active or not. All this is pretty open and public - notoriously so. I'm not seing the "fudge" here.
My point is, that in that article, it says remarried Catholics may take communion only if they abstain from a sexual relationship. If they do so, despite remaining in a couple, they may take communion.
My point is, in response to rugby playing priest ridiculing the current anglican announcement, the RC church fudges various things in odd ways to. People in glass houses etc
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
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.
It's definitely news to me.
A cursory trawl of the net produced nothing I could identify as directly related to your recollection - but then it was cursory. Got any links?
No I don't. It was discussed in the context of our RE course, when we discussing the issues raised by the ordination of women in the CofE - why priests were not leaving and joining the RC church when they were unhappy with the move. Hence leading to a discussion of the status of married priests in the RC church.
I have found this discussion of why it is more of a hot button issue in Latin America. There were signs of movement pre-1980s.
But then this was pr-internet saturation of everything.
--------------------
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
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
...the Priest goes on to say:
"He added that gay clergy in civil partnerships in Wales are not asked 'if we do anything naughty in bed'"
which, whilst not being a cleric/Bishop I cannot comment there, but for a layman is not quite true, since I have been asked several times to clarify if I do anything 'naughty' in bed.
Whereas, I (a single, straight woman) have never been asked about what I might do in bed, or with whom, by any person involved in any part of the vocational discernment process. Not during initial discernment, selection, training, ordination, curacy or during recruitment to an incumbency. It may be that the Church of England takes the same attitude to female (homo)sexuality that Queen Victoria is supposed to have done. Perhaps I just look celibate.
But if the church is peering into any bedrooms, it should be peering into them all. Unless this is just about old fashioned homophobia after all...
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
But if the church is peering into any bedrooms, it should be peering into them all. Unless this is just about old fashioned homophobia after all...
H'mmm I do believe you may be right .....
There's nothing that gets our butts on the the judgement seat quicker than men doing things with their todgers that we don't think they ought to be doing.
------------------------------------------
It's hard to see the Anglican Church getting into any greater state of debacle than it has done of late with it's handling of women's ordination and now this latest ruling on male gay Bishops.
Unless Justin Webly is going to show up in the NY dressed as a pantomime Fairy Godmother and wave a magic wand to make it all go away, I see little cause for optimism .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The point about divorced and remarried Catholics not being allowed to receive Communion is that the RC church does not consider these people to be married in a sacramental sense.
At the same time the Church acknowledges that a civil marriage has taken place.A civil marriage is,however,for Catholics and for the Catholic church not a 'marriage' in the Catholic sense of the word.
Part of this problem in understanding of the meaning of the terms come from the linking in the UK and some other countries of civil and religious marriages.
Unless a Catholic who was married at one time received an annulment of marriage in the Catholic church they would not be permitted to marry again in a Catholic church.Any other marriage which they might contract either in a civil ceremony or in some other Christian denomination or indeed in some other religion would not be recognised as a Catholic marriage.In the eyes of the church such a couple would be living 'in sin' and would not be allowed to receive Communion.
At the same time the Church or some sections within it such as the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna are seeking ways of making it easier to grant an annulment.Many people enter marriage without a full understanding of the commitment needed and this is possibly a way of more easily granting annulments.
I remember many years ago speaking to a mature couple who were not married(because they got a better pension as single people).They wanted to go to Communion but couldn't unless they promised to live as bother and sister. Who would believe us,they said.The the bishop stepped in and arranged exceptionally to marry them privately religiously without the necessary civil ceremony.(This was not in the UK)
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There was a discussion about this on the PM programme today. The anti-gay woman who spoke said, among other things:
* of course you couldn't believe any gay who claimed to be celibate
* most of the population shared the same feeling of "revulsion" that she had when she thought about homosexuality
* she had recently been in New York, where the sight of men kissing had "turned her stomach"
If this is the level of argument that the anti-gay brigade is going to advance, then I think they're going to be laughed out of court!
I heard that discussion. There was a certain guilty pleasure in hearing Giles Fraser splutter over where to start with that nutter.
Yes, I heard it too, and it could never be described as edifying. (BBC Radio4 Saturday 5th Jan 5pm just for the record.) It was a classic example of the car-crash style of broadcasting that the BBC seems to delight in setting up, in which they get two people of extremely opposed opinions (this is called ‘balance’) and leave them to sling mud at each other while neither argument is examined rigorously. So it isn’t surprising that the BBC should choose an extreme and tactless person to take the anti-gay side (and also with the underlying agenda of discrediting that side of the argument.) Yes, it did have some entertainment value, of the guilty pleasure kind – as I previously alluded to, like watching a car crash.
To bring some balance to the criticism of the people taking part, something I found remarkable was that Giles Fraser openly exhorted any homosexual bishop who was questioned about his celibacy to blatantly lie about it. I guess that Fraser isn’t evangelical in his beliefs, but this does still rather destroy his credibility as a spiritual guide and advisor, in view of the teachings of Jesus and others in the New Testament:
‘For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery ... deceit ... All these things come from within and they defile a person.’ (Jesus, as reported in Mark 7:21-23 ESV, emphasis added)
‘Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbour, for we are members one of another’ (Eph.4:25 ESV)
Other examples can be found, such as Rev.21:8. And lying and deceit hardly seem to fit in with the characteristics of integrity required for an overseer/presbyter/bishop as recorded in 1Tim.3:1:7 and Tit.1:7-9, especially in view of the contrasting negative view of ‘deceivers’ in Tit.1:10.
Angus
[ 06. January 2013, 15:31: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Giles Fraser does expand on his view in the Guardian today. I have to say I don't think he's right but if I squint I can kind of see his point. The thing is I think I'd rather have it clear that the church has a bizarre attitude to sex rather than pretending that lying is an acceptable solution to a problem. I think those Bishops who have taken the approach with their clergy of not asking questions to which they don't want to know the answer have a slightly better, if still imperfect, approach.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
In the Observer, Barbara Ellen makes the point that the CofE's reluctance to think about gay sexuality reflects mainstream culture's peevishness about the issue. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/06/gay-bishops-church-of-england
I don't think it is a gay thing though. People in general, don't talk about their private sexual behavior. Even couples don't divulge in normal conversation what they like to do in bed.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The point about divorced and remarried Catholics not being allowed to receive Communion is that the RC church does not consider these people to be married in a sacramental sense.
At the same time the Church acknowledges that a civil marriage has taken place.A civil marriage is,however,for Catholics and for the Catholic church not a 'marriage' in the Catholic sense of the word.
Part of this problem in understanding of the meaning of the terms come from the linking in the UK and some other countries of civil and religious marriages.
Unless a Catholic who was married at one time received an annulment of marriage in the Catholic church they would not be permitted to marry again in a Catholic church.Any other marriage which they might contract either in a civil ceremony or in some other Christian denomination or indeed in some other religion would not be recognised as a Catholic marriage.In the eyes of the church such a couple would be living 'in sin' and would not be allowed to receive Communion.
At the same time the Church or some sections within it such as the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna are seeking ways of making it easier to grant an annulment.Many people enter marriage without a full understanding of the commitment needed and this is possibly a way of more easily granting annulments.
I remember many years ago speaking to a mature couple who were not married(because they got a better pension as single people).They wanted to go to Communion but couldn't unless they promised to live as bother and sister. Who would believe us,they said.The the bishop stepped in and arranged exceptionally to marry them privately religiously without the necessary civil ceremony.(This was not in the UK)
So very like the civil partnership but don't shag position of the CofE in respect of gay couples then. Which is what I was arguing in the first place.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
something I found remarkable was that Giles Fraser openly exhorted any homosexual bishop who was questioned about his celibacy to blatantly lie about it. I guess that Fraser isn’t evangelical in his beliefs, but this does still rather destroy his credibility as a spiritual guide and advisor,
I don't think telling a lie is necessarily a bad thing. Some people are not able to hear the truth - what they hear is something different - for example, not so long ago, many people thought that 'homosexuals' frequented public toilets. So if they asked someone if they were homosexual, what they really meant was 'Are you promiscuous? Hang around loos?' to which the correct answer might be 'no', whilst technically being a lie.
When some Ugandans and Nigerians ask the same question, they are thinking 'Are you lower than a pig? Are you demon-possessed?' Or even 'Do you have anal intercourse?' - to which many gay men could honestly say 'no'.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
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.
It's definitely news to me.
A cursory trawl of the net produced nothing I could identify as directly related to your recollection - but then it was cursory. Got any links?
No I don't. It was discussed in the context of our RE course, when we discussing the issues raised by the ordination of women in the CofE - why priests were not leaving and joining the RC church when they were unhappy with the move. Hence leading to a discussion of the status of married priests in the RC church.
I have found this discussion of why it is more of a hot button issue in Latin America. There were signs of movement pre-1980s.
But then this was pr-internet saturation of everything.
Doublethink, I imagine you will agree that neither of these links does anything to substantiate your recollection that Latin American priests were allowed to marry so long as they remained sexually abstinent.
Furthermore, wouldn't you expect something as significant as this to have made onto the internet pretty prominently by now? It's definitely something that would play to the married-priesthood lobbyists' agenda very strongly. Why aren't they capitalising on it?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
<snip> Unless a Catholic who was married at one time received an annulment of marriage in the Catholic church they would not be permitted to marry again in a Catholic church.Any other marriage which they might contract either in a civil ceremony or in some other Christian denomination or indeed in some other religion would not be recognised as a Catholic marriage.In the eyes of the church such a couple would be living 'in sin' and would not be allowed to receive Communion. <snip>
So very like the civil partnership but don't shag position of the CofE in respect of gay couples then. Which is what I was arguing in the first place.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) How so? The Church does not permit these second marriages at all.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I don't think telling a lie is necessarily a bad thing. ...... whilst technically being a lie.
There is no technicality about it. A lie is an attempt to mislead or to avoid the truth - whether everyone can or does hear the truth is a moot point but everyone deserves the opportunity to have a go at hearing it.
As for publicly condoning lies, (if that is what Giles Fraser has done) then that blows his credibilty as a priest and counsellor out of the water. Is he fit to remain as a priest? What would he say to soemone trying to lie to HMRC? Is it a matter of degree?
If you are a priest, if gay is what you are and active expressions of that are what you do, then be honest about it. Some won't agree or be happy with that but at least you are honest. What is the worst that can happen? Discipline from the CofE? Like being savaged by a wet blanket.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I think Doublethink is referring to a number of clergy who were part of the liberation theology movement in the 70's who left the church to get married. As far as I can recall it happened in Brazil. I don't know if they made requests to stay in priesthood or not.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Giles Fraser does expand on his view in the Guardian today. I have to say I don't think he's right but if I squint I can kind of see his point. The thing is I think I'd rather have it clear that the church has a bizarre attitude to sex rather than pretending that lying is an acceptable solution to a problem. I think those Bishops who have taken the approach with their clergy of not asking questions to which they don't want to know the answer have a slightly better, if still imperfect, approach.
I've just read Giles Fraser's piece and on this occasion I think he's way off mark. What he doesn't seem to realise is that in Gayworld, we have a special word for lying about youself, your lovers, and your love: that word is "closet". Fraser is telling gay bishops to go back in the closet.
Call me radical, but I think the only honourable course at the moment is for any gay person in a relationship to refuse the episcopate. Loudly. And publicly.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[qb] Giles Fraser does expand on his view in the Guardian today. I have to say I don't think he's right but if I squint I can kind of see his point. The thing is I think I'd rather have it clear that the church has a bizarre attitude to sex rather than pretending that lying is an acceptable solution to a problem. I think those Bishops who have taken the approach with their clergy of not asking questions to which they don't want to know the answer have a slightly better, if still imperfect, approach.
I've just read Giles Fraser's piece and on this occasion I think he's way off mark. What he doesn't seem to realise is that in Gayworld, we have a special word for lying about youself, your lovers, and your love: that word is "closet". Fraser is telling gay bishops to go back in the closet.
How is that different from the current status quo? With the exception of JJ, I don't know many CofE clergy who are "out and proud."
Even in this article: http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/religion/2013/01/what-makes-gay-vicar-stay-church-england
I noticed that Father did not mention a partner.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I noticed that Father did not mention a partner.
Maybe he hasn't got one. I haven't.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I suppose we shouldn't mock celibate marriage, after all, according to Sacred Tradition, the Blessed Virgin Mary and her noble Spouse, St Joseph of Nazareth had one.
That being said, to impose that on people who are not called to that vocation seems cruel and unjust.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I don't think telling a lie is necessarily a bad thing. ...... whilst technically being a lie.
There is no technicality about it. A lie is an attempt to mislead or to avoid the truth - whether everyone can or does hear the truth is a moot point but everyone deserves the opportunity to have a go at hearing it.
I'm very uneasy about Giles Fraser's line on this, but leo has a point if you read his remarks in context. To use a completely non-controversial example, I am a retired priest in the C of E, hence an ex-vicar if you like. If someone asks me (as they often do) 'Are you a vicar?' I don't usually give them a tutorial in Anglican terminology, I usually say 'yes' because I know what they mean. But technically my answer is a lie.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Soooo, that cleric in a civil partnership is celibate.
O. K.
By the way, all that ale in my two refrigerators? I don't actually drink it.
And don't you DARE question my truthfulness on that. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Wouldn't dream of it. Everyone knows that chilled ale (i.e. proper beer) tastes bloody awful: if you were going to drink it you'd have stored it in the cupboard- so it's obviously in the fridge to keep it out of temptation's way.
I think for better or for worse this may be suggesting some kind of parallel but I'm blowed if I know what it is.
Personally, I think the insistence on celibacy for gay bishops in a quasi-married relationship is inhuman.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I would suspect that it is the recognition of the legitimacy of the quasi-marital relationship that is annoying the con-evos.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, I think you're right.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Giles Fraser does expand on his view in the Guardian today. I have to say I don't think he's right but if I squint I can kind of see his point. The thing is I think I'd rather have it clear that the church has a bizarre attitude to sex rather than pretending that lying is an acceptable solution to a problem. I think those Bishops who have taken the approach with their clergy of not asking questions to which they don't want to know the answer have a slightly better, if still imperfect, approach.
I've just read Giles Fraser's piece and on this occasion I think he's way off mark. What he doesn't seem to realise is that in Gayworld, we have a special word for lying about youself, your lovers, and your love: that word is "closet". Fraser is telling gay bishops to go back in the closet.
Call me radical, but I think the only honourable course at the moment is for any gay person in a relationship to refuse the episcopate. Loudly. And publicly.
I think your point is a good one, but I did rather admire Giles' article as well. I suppose the trouble with lying, is that nobody knows you are! So in a way, the rebellious nature of it is hidden away, and as you say, back in the closet.
Yet, at the same time, perhaps it is OK to lie also. Perhaps one could lie rather ostentatiously! It's rather thrilling, actually.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
<snip> Unless a Catholic who was married at one time received an annulment of marriage in the Catholic church they would not be permitted to marry again in a Catholic church.Any other marriage which they might contract either in a civil ceremony or in some other Christian denomination or indeed in some other religion would not be recognised as a Catholic marriage.In the eyes of the church such a couple would be living 'in sin' and would not be allowed to receive Communion. <snip>
So very like the civil partnership but don't shag position of the CofE in respect of gay couples then. Which is what I was arguing in the first place.
How so? The Church does not permit these second marriages at all.
I don't understand what is confusing you.
RRP was saying it was somehow uniquely ridiculous / hypocritical for the CofE to ask clergy in a secular partnership - not recognised as marriage by the CofE - to remain celibate in order to remain in good standing with their church.
The RC church asks couples in a secular partnership - not recognised as marriage by the RC church - to remain celibate in order to remain in good standing with their church.
Hence ridiculousness / hypocrisy not limited to anglicans alone.
That is all. I am not arguing the position is theologically incorrect.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I notice that I keep laughing about all this, and I asked myself why, and I think it's because it's all becoming so bizarre, surreal, unhinged, and a few other adjectives like this. When we are talking about possible women bishops, celibate gay male bishops, therefore possible celibate lesbian bishops, it does start to resemble a Monty Python sketch which got left on the floor of the editing room.
Am I crazy, or are they crazy, or are we all just being normal confused human beings?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
So very like the civil partnership but don't shag position of the CofE in respect of gay couples then. Which is what I was arguing in the first place.
How so? The Church does not permit these second marriages at all.
I don't understand what is confusing you.
RRP was saying it was somehow uniquely ridiculous / hypocritical for the CofE to ask clergy in a secular partnership - not recognised as marriage by the CofE - to remain celibate in order to remain in good standing with their church.
The RC church asks couples in a secular partnership - not recognised as marriage by the RC church - to remain celibate in order to remain in good standing with their church.
Hence ridiculousness / hypocrisy not limited to anglicans alone.
That is all. I am not arguing the position is theologically incorrect.
But you aren't taking into account what I've already pointed out is the difference. The difference is that the CofE is saying to its clerics: "Go ahead - you may certainly contract your civil partnerships - no problem! Oh, by the way, no sex though, right?" That's where the "ridiculousness / hypocrisy" (not my choice of words) lies.
Whereas, what the Catholic Church says to her adherents is: "Once married, you may not divorce and remarry without a dispensation/annulment. If you do, there are consequences for that: you may not receive Communion unless you set that right by confession, absolution and amendment of life." Where's the "fudge" (to use your term in response to RRP) in that?
I've already addressed your Latin American priests and Ordinariate points.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| 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
