Its been quite a week for matters homosexual in the news. First we learnt of the despicable decision of the Ugandan authorities to arrest and imprison practising homosexuals. A cruel, uncharitable and draconian development which every civilised human should deplore. One should never imprison, nor persecute people for what is certainly not criminal behaviour. This is an affront to personal dignity and civil liberty and it is our duty to stand up for such people at this time. On this secular matter I am firmly in support of the gay community even though as a priest, in seeking obedience to scripture and the teaching of the church throughout the ages, I stop short of endorsing such lifestyle choices.
Then, in the same week, we read about the latest inflammatory decision of the wilfully disobedient Episcopal Church of America. Having already damaged the Anglican church deeply by consecrating a practising homosexual, without the blessing of the wider communion, they now seek to push the agenda further by appointing a partnered lesbian as bishop. Wow! A double whammy- female and gay- that is certainly a blow dealt to traditionalist Christians whom they know will feel troubled by such news!
Regardless of one’s opinion on partnered homosexuals in holy orders, the wider church needs this like a hole in the head! I deplore the huberis and insensitivity of the Episcopal Church in this matter, for it only widens already gaping wounds. Perhaps +Alan has a valid point when he suggests sending the Americans to Uganda and the Ugandans to America- they could both certainly do with lessons in love, sensitivity and tact!
But in seriousness we must not confuse these issues. One is a civil matter and the other ecclesial. And the choices we endorse and accept in the world should not necessarily match those we espouse as a Church. Christians are called to live by a different standard, and that is why it is quite reasonable to support the civil rights of the gay community in Uganda, whilst upholding the scriptural line- of chastity in marriage or chastity in celibacy -for practising Christians. We would want the world to be converted for sure, that society as a whole would take on our holy way of life. And where people fell short, as all do, we would act sensitively, compassionately and in a way that made them feel no better or worse than any other Christian who sins. (Hint- this is all of us!) But a distinction could certainly be made.
A sad week on two counts then. Both the world and church grew a little less loving. Tragedy seems inevitable, both in Uganda and the Anglican Church – but for different reasons. And slowly but surely ++Rowan Williams watches in horror as the chickens come home to roost. Having played for time and prevaricated, instead of disciplining or supporting the Americans over the consecration of Gene Robinson, he now looks even weaker than ever. A splintered backside so often leads to trouble in the end! The liberals now lament his silence concerning Uganda and his refusal to celebrate the consecration of the lesbian bishop, whilst traditionalists have simply said enough! It is not that they are homophobic, as critics love to claim, we simply want to live out the faith as has always been taught through the ages and as is taught throughout the wider church today.
Unless we witness a miracle then, evangelicals will now go one way as we Catholics feel ever more certain that the Ordinariate is a wonderful thing. But be in no doubt concerning who has caused this tragic schism. It is those who consistently opt for rolling out an agenda without consent of Christians elsewhere. I would ask such liberals just one thing- what is the reward for your triumphs if you have broken your church in the process?
The reward, dear Father, is that they have rid themselves of any and all opposition. The steamroller can roll along unhindered.
You remain in our prayers as you struggle to uphold the faith once delivered.
Hi Fr Ed
Well said re. Uganda. But why should the Americans look for wider consent when the Episcopal Church – which operates in a democratic way and even elects its bishops – has clear support for its agenda from within? As to RW, he may have made a pig’s ear of things recently but TEC is autonomous; he is not in a position to discipline them.
The fact is that conservative Christians have an unhealthy obsession with matters of gender and sexuality, out of all proportion to their importance.
best wishes,
Rod
your levvy at conservative Christians could easily be reflected back Rod.
And as to having clear support- I almost spat my beer out! If there is a majority vote that is ONLY because HUGE numbers have left over Gene Robinson- or been deposed by KJS with mission funds being used for litigation purposes, this exodus includes whole Dioceses – leading to several breakaway churches and record losses in numbers of communicants….do you REALLY suggest that reflects a concensus of opinion??!! It would be like Hitler ethnically cleansing Germany of Jews and then claiming clear support for his holocaust!!
‘conservative Christians have an unhealthy obsession with matters of gender and sexuality, out of all proportion to their importance.’
The fact is, when “conservative Christians” get a mention in the media, it is first and foremost about these matters (or anything that enables to point a finger at them for being “nutjobs”). Does it say more about the media or about “conservative Christian” ?
I believe I evolve in what you would label a “conservative Christian” background (although not really conservative in a political sense…), and those are issues I had very few opportunities to discuss with my fellow “sex-obsessed Conservative Christian” folks : incredible as it may seem, we really have broader centers of interest.
Thank you Father for drawing a parallel between these two sad events, but without passion. In moral matters, the difficult part is to manage to keep a balance between Truth and Love : real Love is demanding, it can’t exist without Truth. But Truth without love only brings despair. Fortunately, God is a demanding Father, and a Father full of mercy. May He give us some of His wisdom !
Dear Father,
Perhaps when you have a few more years of ministry under your belt, you will come to realise that both women and gays are ‘Children of God’, equal in dignity and need of respect as heterosexual men – even if they are ‘High Church’. Your so obvious disapproval of women in ministry is so well-known now that one did not expect any other reaction from you to the selection of Mary Glasspool as a Bishop in TEC.
However, you probably are treading on much more insecure ground when you use an anti-gay bias in this posting. This could possibly put you at odds with those members of SSC who are gay themselves.
“your levvy at conservative Christians could easily be reflected back Rod.”
But the conservatives, in continually highlighting the evils of women/gay clergy, are driving the debate. Why are these issues such an article of faith?
Hang on Rod, this twist in the debate and present furore was hardly driven by conservatives but by the decision to consecrate a lesbian women- how can you lay that at the feet of orthodox Christians? If you always read about it I would suggest that says more about the media than anything else.
Ron. S. – please stick to what is written instead of making snide remarks. At no point in my post do I make any claim that women or gays are less valued than heterosexual men. I would not for I do not believe that. In fact read carefully and I make quite the opposite point.
The only thing you really dislike, I suspect, is that I uphold the official position of the Anglican church and the teaching of the universal church throughout the ages. I make no apology for that. As a priest of more experience than myself I would expect you to set me a good example of obedience to the teaching of the Christian faith.
Please do demonstrate how my post is ‘anti-gay’? That is really quite slanderous. Standing by church teaching does not equate to homophobia and again you should know that. You suggest I should see others as children of God- can you equally extend that to orthodox and traditionalist Christians? Those being driven out of the CHurch in America and offered no meaningful provision in England?
I think what is needed is less finger pointing and more respect on both sides. I actually tried to write a measured post. I took care to make the point that homosexual sin was no different to other sins and that homophobia is intolerable. But it seems that unless I agree with you in seeking to change the Christian tradtion then I am to be accused of intolerance. That seems a cheap shot. So be it- until the church universal changes its official teaching on matters of human sexuality I shall continue seeking to be faithful its teaching. I make no apology for that.
Oh dear.
I have to write something here. Thank you, Father, for your enlightened support of gay civil and human rights. I agree with you that the bloody-mindedness of the Episcopalian church in this matter is egregious and seems to show a complete lack of concern for unity in Christ’s sacred body, no matter how much support this particular episcopal appointment has amongst the faithful. No-one HAS to be a bishop. Personally I feel this is damaging the cause for acceptance of gay Christians rather than helping it. It is polarising and political and seems to lack charity towards those of the same faith but a different opinion and make what ++Rowan calls ’second order’ issues (I would prefer the more scriptural ‘adiaphora’) into first order ones. However, to criticise the leadership of the American church in such emotive terms is really not helpful in my view. Where conservatives are in power, such as in the Archdiocese of Sydney, they behave in exactly the same way towards those of differing opinions, trying to thwart the spread of the Gospel when not on their terms. This does not justify their actions, I just think emotive analogies are wrong here.
As to your opinion that homosexual orientation is a ‘lifestyle choice’, I would point you to the overwhelming evidence of modern Psychology that this is not the case. I would also point you to the authoritative teaching of the RC church (CCC 2357-2359) which accepts that for a large number of people this orientation is a reality which cannot be changed but accepted as ‘a trial’. It is therefore in no way a ‘lifestyle choice’ according to the Catholic church, although sexual acts are not condoned.
Thank you for your blog, I am a fairly regular reader.
Matthew
By lifestyle choice I was not refering to the orientation but decision to act on it. And before anyone suggests it is unreasonale to expect this- surely it is no different to the self control we expect from faithful husbands and wives, single heterosexuals, widows, widowers, etc… And again where this does not happen- there is the confessional and no need to get knickers in twists. I recognise this is sensitive ground but am simply expressing the teaching of the church which you rightly mention. I also added, as priest, in my post because I do struggle with this one a little personally. But my personal feelings are not to take precedent over my calling to teach the faith that comes to us from the apostles.
I also utterly refute any notion that holy orders are second order issues. The sacraments are validated through these orders and if some people are not really what they seem to be then that is extremely serious. But thank you for a measured reply!
“By lifestyle choice I was not refering to the orientation but decision to act on it.”
So we should all deny our natural instincts based on the ‘wisdom’ of Bronze Age Shepherds?
“It is therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship.This is the fountain of truth;this, the domicile of faith;this the temple of God.
Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation…Because,however,all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church,let it be known that this is the true Church,in which there is is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh subject.” St. Lactantus ( Divine Institutes 4:30-11-13[ A.D. 307]
“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is–for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’–nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem ( Catechetical Lectures 18:23[ A.D. 350]
“The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep[St. John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last
, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house.”
St. Augustine of Hippo ( The Foundation 4:5[ A.D. 397]
I was very interested to read the musings St. Lactantus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Augustine of Hippo*. We must not forget however that they MADE IT ALL UP.
*I think I prefer St. Augustine of Rhino though