From AP: Episcopal panel rejects Anglican demand

A key Episcopal panel defied conservatives Thursday, saying that Episcopal leaders should not cede authority to overseas Anglicans who want the church to halt its march toward full acceptance of gays.

The Episcopal Executive Council said that Anglican leaders, called primates, cannot make decisions for the American denomination, which is the Anglican body in the United States.

“We question the authority of the primates to impose deadlines and demands upon any of the churches of the Anglican Communion,” the council said in a statement, after a meeting in Parsippany, N.J.

The worldwide Anglican Communion has moved toward the brink of splitting apart since the Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, in 2003.

In February, Anglican leaders demanded that Episcopalians allow a panel ”” that would include Anglican conservatives from other countries ”” to oversee conservative Episcopal parishes in the U.S. Episcopalians also were given until Sept. 30 to unequivocally pledge not to consecrate another openly gay bishop or authorize official prayers for same-sex couples.

The Executive Council did not speak directly to the other demands in its statement Thursday, but said it has struggled “to embrace people who have historically been marginalized.”

Read the whole article.

Print Friendly

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Anglican Primates, Episcopal Church (TEC), Primates Mtg Dar es Salaam, Feb 2007

46 comments on “From AP: Episcopal panel rejects Anglican demand

  1. Northern Plains Anglicans says:

    Many of us are old enough to have been baptized and maybe even confirmed using the rites in the 1928 BCP.
    What does this new TEC make of our promises?
    “Dost thou believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith, as contained in the Apostles’ Creed?” – “I do.”
    “Wilt thou then obediently keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of thy life?” – “I will, by God’s help.” (And we sure ain’t gettin’ no help from TEC).
    Ah, well, it’s all been said by smarter ‘n’ us. The TEC represented by the Exec Council simply wants the freedom to lie, cheat and steal for a small group of “entitled” club members.
    Their quotation of Ephesians 4 in their smarmy statement was the worst. Humility? Gentleness? Patience? Unity of the Spirit? Appeal to one God, the Father? All things that TEC insiders reject. These people have no conscience left to sear.

  2. Crazy Horse says:

    This article in inncorrect–TEC is no longer the Anglican body in America. They have clearly and decisively walked apart.

    The Common Cause partners are the Anglican Body in the United States.

    Glad that much was finally settled today by the Executive Council.

  3. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Exec Council clearly is schizophrenic in its understanding of Constitutions and Canons as its pronouncements on the Primatial Council concept and its claims about interfering in dioceses make patently obvious. It will be interesting to see the postmodernist twist that reconcile those two contrary actions.

  4. TraditionalOne says:

    We should not tolerate this from the leaders of our church. Rather than try to find ways to leave the church we should be thinking of ways to throw the bums out. For example, we should be writing the members of the Executive Council and tell them how much we disapprove of their action.
    By our passivity, we have allowed Integrity, a group with an annual budget of less than $300,000 to control things. There are a thousand times more members of the Episcopal Church who would disapprove of what was going on if they were better informed.
    Let’s throw the bums out before they finish destroying our beloved Episcopal Church.

  5. Philip Bowers says:

    TraditionalOne:

    But that passivity has allowed the liberals complete control of every political, controlling body of TEC. That battle is lost. The orthodox may control a parish, but the church has been lost for a decade. Your numbers mean nothing when they, the liberals, have all the political control. Sorry.

  6. TraditionalOne says:

    We have been our own worst enemy by not speaking out. They are still a small minority in numbers and if enough speak up and take action, political control could be rested away. My first posting sounds much more passive than I meant it to.

  7. TomB says:

    Sigh. I think this is history repeating itself. The last time this kiind of thing happened it spawned The Mormon Church (God is doing a new thing in our sexuality). Not sure I feel as optimistic about “The Episcopal Mormon Church’, though, as I don’t feel it has quite the same level of impetus that the original Mormon Church did…

  8. DH says:

    “We question the authority of the primates to impose deadlines and demands upon any of the churches of the Anglican Communion,” the council.

    I’m sure the majority of the Primates will say, “Oh my goodness how bad of us! They think we are imposing something on them when we are only saying, ‘Keep the direction you are going and we know you have left the faith delivered to us by our Lord Jesus Christ.’
    We do not want our provinces tainted by your sin. It is apparent that you no longer desire to be in communion with the vast majority of the members of the Anglican Communion. We are not kicking you out of the Anglican Communion. By your sin you took yourselves out of communion with us.”

    I really thought the Executive Council was grown up enough to realize they do not run the Anglican Communion any longer and that the majority of the AC will say, “Well, thank you for letting us know. Now we can freely plant missions in wayward America.”

  9. Br. Michael says:

    But 6, in TEC the battle is truly lost. It’s time to move on to a correct expresson of Anglacinasm.

  10. AnglicanFirst says:

    Response to Traditional One,

    The highly civilized people of Chekoslovakia (sorry for my anglicized spelling) were deceived by radical progressives after WWII to seek communist leadership. They suffered for their ill chosen decison.

    I am suggesting in this historical reference that it is possible for a small group of operatives who single-mindedly pursue a specific secular agenda to totally unbalance and dominate almost any institution that is democratically governed.

    This is what the ‘progressives’ in ECUSA have done and are doing.

    The ECUSA progressives are not very Christian in the focus of their religious belief.

    They are much more the children of the Hegelian philosophy of the late 1770s and early 1800s.

    The children of that philosophy also produced anti-democratic radical socialists, national socialists (NAZIs) and utopian socialists (communists). The ultimate expression of this philosophy upon society was that of nihilistic destruction. Today, it is called deconstruction.

  11. Laocoon says:

    AnglicanFirst – Good point about Czechoslovakia. And let’s not forget the effect, years later, of a handful of committed Czechs and Slovaks who were willing to stand up for what they believed.

    Br. Michael – Is there no hope? I have very little hope in my own ability to express any religion in the way God deserves it to be expressed. (I’d have made a terrible Reformer, I know!) Serious (i.e. not rhetorical) question: How does one decide it’s time to give up the fight?

    Laocoon

  12. plainsheretic says:

    Anglican First,

    You don’t really know your history if you are in some way suggesting that situation in TEC is in anyway similar to that of the Czeckoslovakia during the communist take over. I suppose the presence of the Soviet military might have had something to do with their switch away from the marshal plan toward moscow, but hey what do I know!

    Can a small group of people change the direction of an organization? Sure. You could say the same about a hand full of primates and american conservatives as well. But that really isn’t what you were getting at now was it?

    THen to go on and make such a link to the leadership of TEC and the Nazi’s is really something. The Nazi philosophy was hardly coherent, and was really based in hatred and the defeat of the Germans in WWI. Most serious scholars would not give them that much credit.

    I suppose one could disagree with the Executive Council’s statments without making such histerical claims.

  13. DH says:

    #12. Hardly a handful of Primates, since they are the vast majority of the AC in numbers and communicants.

    The TEC is a small minority in this cat fight and they know it, hence the huffing and puffing.

    Also, where do you get the minority numbers of “American conservatives?” If that is so why is the HOB and the leaders in 815 so cruel when they want to leave.

  14. Passionate Parson says:

    I can see clearly now; the rain is gone. I can see all obstacles in my way….O what a bright sunshiny day. TEC’s saying my way or the highway. Many will stick with her out of fear for property or inertia, saying our congregation or our diocese will be just fine, thank you. After all, the church is diverse. We’ll remain faithful even when they new rector and the new bishop start teaching our children and grandchildren how to just love everybody. What was it Daniel said about the handwriting on the wall?

  15. DonGander says:

    12. plainsparson:

    The comparison was to Czechoslovakia was categorical and apt.

    I wish that all could understand what “10. AnglicanFirst” is relating. One item I am unfamiliar with but the remainder is salient and true as I understand them.

    We will repeat history because we don’t know our history. History as taught in most schools is typically warmed-over soda pop. No kind of worth to an adult.

    DonGander

  16. AnglicanFirst says:

    Reply to #12.

    PlainsPerson,

    A study of the philosophical and political dis-ease in Europe that was expressed so violently during the 20th century all leads back to Hegelian philosophy. So does the demise of Christian believers in Europe and the tremendous surge of self-serving behavior on that continent.

    People living today still hold variants of that philosophy in their hearts whether they realize it or not. The ‘warm strokes’ of that philosophy are to ‘do good.’ In ‘doing that good’ they have imposed incredible suffering upon other human beings.

    And the ‘harsh strokes’ of that philosophy resulted in people distrusting and rejecting Christ and the Father and have lead people to ‘self-justify’ themselves into thinking that they are ‘doing good’ when in fact they really ‘doing evil.’

    If you have doubts about this, look to the Soviet enforced starvation of farmers in the 1930s and the NAZI justifications for prison camps for civilians.

    Why not just look at eugenics in the early 1900s, ehh?

    I am sorry, nothing good has come from Hegelian philosophy and the leadership of ECUSA seems to be congruent in its activities with elements of it.

  17. Mike Bertaut says:

    I know this is old hat, but my nose still wrinkles every time I hear the phrase “full acceptance of gays” or something similar. I love dearly my gay brothers and sisters in the Church, and want nothing less than full and complete salvation for them.

    That’s more than I can say for Integrity, or any of the supposed “supporters” they have at 815 who are supporting their sinful action. Why is this so hard to understand?

    “It is a hard teaching, who can hear it?” (my question mark)

    KTF….mrb

  18. Laocoon says:

    #16 – I think the source you’re looking for is sin, not Hegel. Much good has come from Hegel. Best not to damn what you don’t understand. It’s funny, actually: the way you trace the evils of a particular generation back to some root cause in philosophy is positively Hegelian.

  19. AnglicanFirst says:

    Reply to #18.

    As I am sure you know, the literature that provides insights into the cause and effect relationships of history and the intents in the minds of those who have shaped history make it difficult to define historical thoughts in a language that will satisfy those who strive to comprehend them fully in a modern context.

    However, as a starting point, in understanding modern Europe, Hegel was a key person in time.

    Much that happened in Europe can be attributed to his philosophy.

  20. Tom Roberts says:

    “How does one decide it’s time to give up the fight? ”

    When it becomes obvious that God has not sent his angels to fight besides you. At that point, you are fighting for your own goals.

    That is point at which we find ourselves today, much as David found himself in his time of troubles.

  21. TraditionalOne says:

    Plainparson
    A better analogy than Czeckoslovakia would be the Russin Revolution. A country on the brink of becoming the most powerful economic country in Europe is taken over by a small group of power hungry, ruthless revolutionaries. They are still recovering from the damage done almost 90 years ago.
    The point is that a small group of committed indivuals can overtake an institution if the majority sit by and allow it too happen.
    We should say enough is enough and do all that we can to throw these people out. If they want a new theology, let them start their own church.

  22. Laocoon says:

    Tom Roberts – Okay, next question: how do I know I’m not like Elisha’s servant in 2 Kings 6.15?

    Timeo Danaos (episcopos?) et dona ferentes – Laocoon

  23. azusa says:

    # 18: no, I strongly disagree. Hegel was a disaster for theology and the church, as the oh so prescient Soren Kierkegaard saw in the 1840s. That deceptive spirit of so called ‘progress’ (#17, great tail quote!) keeps cropping up, whether in Tec or Moltmann.
    Don’t fear the Greeks – patristic theology is a great gift to the church. But German idealism (& Kant as well), evacuating the Bible of its historical and theological meaning – no.
    # 22: Because I don’t think you and Elisha would get on too well. He demanded that the foreigner Naaaman get baptized in the Jordan, he cursed Gehazi for embezzlement, he prayed for the Syrians to be struck with blindness etc etc. Wouldn’t you have corrected his harsh, judgmental ways?

  24. Laocoon says:

    Gordian – What a strange thing for you to say about someone you do not know.

    And what a strange thing you say: it is Hegel, not sin, of which we are to repent? Be careful: very little separates you from the reappraisal you despise if you claim that it is ideology, not sin, that ails us.

    And what a shame you aren’t willing to take my question seriously. It was not rhetorical.

    The signature line is not intended literally. Do you know the story of Laocoon?

  25. Dave B says:

    If one really wants to try to get TEC back on tack I think our best tactic is to with hold financial support to the diocese. I know good Bishops will suffer but if the Diocese dosen’t get money they can’t send it to the national church. The national Church already has a 3.8 million short fall. Just earmark you contribution to salaries etc at the local level. Maybe the bishops will get the idea we are serious. In the parish I am at the reappraisers give about 1/10th of the total giving. Money talks and BS walks!

  26. Dave B says:

    Sorry that should be “back on track”

  27. William Witt says:

    If one really wants to try to get TEC back on tack I think our best tactic is to with hold financial support to the diocese.

    This, of course, was one of the tactics used by the CT6, and we know how effective that was.

  28. Larry Morse says:

    This is another nail in TEC’s coffin.One certain reason that they are unaware of the sound of the hammer can be seen in the recent Mass. legislative vote. The Globe internet headline declares that “Gays Keep the right to marry for years to come.” TEC thinks that momentum is with them. Evidence shows it is not; the actual momentum is with the success of the homophile agenda, which is secular, civilrights oriented, Liberal Cultural Elite dominated.

    And yet, what is one to do? The mass of an ethos rolling forward is not something any church can hinder or stop. The war is now fully engaged and I wonder who the victors will be at last, or will there be none? Is this the manifest onset of that decadence, that internal decay, that destroys countries and cultures? If it is, is it really inevitable?
    If and when the homophile agenda overrides all resistance, what will change? What substantive damage will have been done? Will the real anglicans have become outsiders, exiles in their own land?

    The evidence is, as you know, that homosexual behavior is cultural as well as genetic. Are we going to see the beginning of a homosexual-phase sexuality that integrates homosexual practices into the normative practice so that they are seen as a single practice? Has this begun already? Such evidence as i have seen suggests that sodomy has spread in heterosexual relationships, but this evidence is limited and unclear – and indeed, I cannot remember where I have seen it, so my memory thereof is of little use.

    We may assume that TEC will be taken over little by little by homosexual factions. If so, what of it? Can there reallly be a homosexual church? A mainline church?

    What are the ramifications of the African incursions into American churches? Will the broader American society see this as a sort of illegal immigration? For this is possible in the current climate, is it not? Will the other mainline American churches see it this way?

    Beginnin with my generation, we have all watched standards slip, watched self-discipline replaced by self-gratification. We know that the homophile agenda is just a part of a much larger cultural alteration, and we know this change is characterized by narcissicism, immediate gratification, solipsism, and a widespread refusal to accept the necessity of or the desirability of limits and boundaries. We know that traditional Anglicanism stands for the very opposite posture.
    Tell me, do we have a chance, in the long run, of surviving as a real force in the broader American culture, or are we sliding into a kind of principled isolation, like an old man, firm in his beliefs but increasingly infirm in his control and effect?

    I apologize for the lengthy questions, but they must be answered somehow. We cannot simply sit and chat on a blog or we are inviting by inaction the very damage we deplore. And yet, what is a reasonable man to do? Larry

  29. DavidBennett says:

    My theory is that Integrity does essentially speak for ECUSA. I mean heck, look at what has happened to ECUSA in the last 10 years. I used to think that the TEC leadership was out-of-touch with the laity, and eventually, the laity, once informed of the craziness, would rise up and “take back their church.” This could have happened back in the 1970s perhaps, but even most conservatives at the time were too complacent to make waves. By 2007, too many conservatives have left ECUSA (including myself). The reason a 300,000 dollar a year group controls ECUSA is because over the years these folks have ascended to power while conservatives have either twiddled their thumbs or run for the exits.

  30. AnglicanFirst says:

    In comment #28 Larry Morse asked,

    “Tell me, do we have a chance, in the long run, of surviving as a real force in the broader American culture, or are we sliding into a kind of principled isolation,…”

    The county by county and town by town demographics of the past several nation-wide elections can provide insight into the future of American culture.

    While our national culture has been heavily influenced by the national news and entertainment media which are entirely urban-centric in their focus, the nation-wide elections have produced a very interesting ‘red state-blue state’ demographic picture.

    My evaluation is that what is traditional in American culture has a strong residual presence in many medium size cities, most smaller cities and in the more rural counties, townships and villages.

    The seemingly aimless, and almost nihilistic, deconstruction of American culture is strong only in the large cities and in a number of medium sized cities.

    The ‘red-blue’ demographic split is roughly fifty-fifty nation-wide. I think that this ratio is stabilizing and may shift back slightly in the ‘red’ direction. It almost seems that this ‘red-blue’ split will remain a permanent split in American society. We are ‘balkanizing’ ourselves.

    I can state from my personal conversations with people, in a small city-small town-rural area that tends to be ‘red’ in the country-side and ‘blue’ in the villages and nearby small cities, that when it comes to American values, they are both quite conservative and quite libertarian.

    Conservative in that they look at able-bodied chronic welfare recipients as shirkers. One comment comes to mind, “Nobody is going to pay my rent, why should I pay his rent.” They also look at the introduction of drugs into their communities as some sort of social plague that has it’s living roots in big city culture. They look at alcohol problems as local problems. They are very angry about the sale of illegal drugs to school children.

    They are also libertarian which means that when somebody has a different political or social perspective they leave him alone. They may not agree, but they don’t like to openly discuss politics in a prosyletizing or argumentative manner. Quiet waters run deep.

    But, they do see people who move into our area from the large cities almost as foreigners or interlopers. They do not like it when a newcomer (arrived some time in the past twenty years) tells them that there is a ‘better city way’ to do something.

  31. Dave B says:

    Larry, “the actual momentum is with the success of the homophile agenda, which is secular, civilrights oriented, Liberal Cultural Elite dominated”. I really don’t think the momentum is with them on a population level. In Oregon gay marriage was voted down. Legislatures and courts are defying the will of the people.

  32. Stuart Smith says:

    What is truly breath-taking is TEC’s bishops’ and lay leadership’s (on the ‘national’ level) complete captivity to a deceiving spirit. They are true believers in the old Soviet/Communist sense: they will not be deterred by reason or revelation, for they are held captive by the delusion that they are doing God’s Kingdom work in supportinng sexual license/freedom. Dovetailing nicely is the Gnosticism which grips most of them.

    I believe the Primates understand the reality of TEC’s strong delusion. That is why they, sorrowfully, have had to conclude that the Lord is calling on them to consign TEC…as a denomination…to the Devil, until repentance occurs. Since TEC has left the AC and is literally hell-bent (on the organizational level), the best alternative now is to get on with constructing and offering a new expression of the Anglican Way of being a Christian throughout the nation. That is why, for all the conundrums which accompany multiple jursidictions (AMiA, CANA, Kenya, etc.), there is still hope that catholic, evangelical, Spirit-filled, compassionate Anglicans will have a strong bond with the Primates. Thank God for that possibility. And, pray for these poor souls at TEC who continue in their tragic delusion.

  33. Stuart Smith says:

    Oh, and additionally: the most important delusional aspect of TEC is its theological insanity. Exhibited clearly by the new PB, this trend- having taken root from at least the late 1950’s on- has resulted in bishops and priests who have had no biblical, creedal, or patristic training in the Faith of the Church. Hence, when you have lost your way concerning Who God is, it is more than likely that your self-understanding about the Nature and mission of the Church will be likewise lost

  34. PadreWayne says:

    #2: “This article in inncorrect–TEC is no longer the Anglican body in America. They have clearly and decisively walked apart.The Common Cause partners are the Anglican Body in the United States.”
    You may think this is so, but without the Archbishop of Canterbury’s aquiescence, you’re wrong.

    #8 DH: “the vast majority of the members of the Anglican Communion. ” It is interesting that you use the number of members, as opposed to the number of provinces. You could not say, “The vast majority of provinces of the AC are opposed to what TEC is doing.”

    #28, Larry Morse: “he homophile agenda, which is secular, civilrights oriented, Liberal Cultural Elite dominated.” OMG, and I get slammed whenever I so much as mention IRD?!? Conspiracy, conspiracy, everyone take cover! The queers are out to getcha! (And please, oh, please, Larry, do consider dropping the word “sodomy” from your vocabulary. We know it is a thinly veiled reference to a sexual activity you find repulsive [at least you’ve admitted that some heteros may engage in it! good for you!]; moreover, if you’re advocating for limited inclusion of homosexual people, the use of this term limits your argument to men…)

    For those of you antagonistic toward “activist judges” and the court system, you might remember that it was the courts that determined that segregation was wrong long before “the people.”

    #33, Stuart Smith, you might want to check the course requirements of Episcopal seminaries before making your assertion that there is no “biblical, creedal, or patristic training.”

  35. Larry Morse says:

    Drop sodomy from the vocabulary? What for? To say it is thinly veiled is rather funny, for it is hardly veiled, thinly or otherwise. I say sodomy because I want the reader to think anal intercourse. No more euphemisms. Is it repulsive, unclean at every level?
    The bulk of western societies have found it precisely that. What then? Times have changed?Shall we sanction it as an acceptable form of sexual intercourse? Shall we sanction picking pockets as a legitimate business practice because times have changed? Shall we sanction partial birth abortion because times have changed? LM

  36. john scholasticus says:

    #35
    Historically, anal intercourse (between heterosexuals) has been extremely popular in societies that put a neurotic emphasis upon women being (vaginal) virgins before marriage. Thus, for example, ‘Greek style’ is a euphemism for anal intercourse, but one can hardly claim that the Greek Orthodox Church is a repository (or suppository) of Christian revisionism, can one??

  37. DH says:

    #34. I have no idea what you are saying. Maybe I did say members instead of provinces. I am sure both are correct. Tanzania sould help you see that, otherwise why is the TEC kicking up such a fuss, if they had the support of a majoirity of the Primates.

  38. DH says:

    Sorry about the mis-spelling. Before anyone complains “sould” should be “should” and of course a “majoirity” is “majority.”

    78 year old fingers don’t work as well as you young folks fingers do. Wait ’til you get arthritic fingers.

  39. Dave B says:

    #35 I don’t think anal intercourse is Orthodoxy in the Greek Church.

  40. Cennydd says:

    PadreWayne, let’s suppose that the Global South primates reiterate what they said three years ago, when they referred to the reasserters as being “the sole legitimate representation of Anglicanism in the United States.” What do you think Rowan Cantuar would say?

  41. Larry Morse says:

    #36: John I think the research has shown that the use of sodomy between men is most common where women are most held in lowest esteem and where there was a strong religious sanction for male societies.
    Oh, and by the bye, #4, it was NOT the courts that initially found that segregation was unacceptable. Many people had already reached that decision which explains why Brown found supporters everywhere and the Civil Rights Movement burgeoning. The courts echoed what was already a common liberal opinion. They put the imprimatur of the law on the issue. Exactly as slavery was so thrust into the limelight, not by the courts, but by the people. Of course, this was one of liberalism’s finest hours, but one may not reasonably conclude that the present Robinson Disease is an extension of liberalism’s former glory.
    LM

    However, I do not see the connection between “Greek style” and Greek Orthodoxy. Please explain. In Socrates’s day, women were held as little more than chattels and hence the increase in cultural homosexuality – evidence, if I may, that homosexuality is not necessarily genetic – even though there were laws in Periclean times that made homosexual practice punishable by the worst of Athenian punishments, not death, but exile.

  42. Dave B says:

    Sorry comment # 39 was addressed to # 36 and not to # 35

  43. PadreWayne says:

    #41: Larry, your commentary veers toward the sensationalist. Your use of the word “sodomy,” which does not necessarily mean male intercourse (except in your mind) may not have anything to do with your own ick factor, but it is sensationalist and draws attention away from the thread.

    #37: You said “vast majority” — and you simply cannot say that the “vast majority” of provinces oppose TEC. It is both misleading and just plain wrong.

  44. Larry Morse says:

    #43 You are right in this, I have drawn attention away from the thread, which is improper.

    Of sodomy, I have made it clear what it means and that , regardless of whether heterosexual or homosexual, The “ick factor” as you call it, to trivialize the impact, is of utmost importance. Scripture is very clear on this matter. Does this count for something or for little? The Robinson Disease is strongly influenced by a general repulsion concerning sodomy. While no one has said it – that I know of – there seems to be a general feeling that a priest of bishop who engages in this practice is violating a deep principle for which “ick factor” (properly used for discussions of whether sheep’s eyes are good to eat or not) is wholly inadaquate. I ask the others here, have they heard or read of explicit discussion of the role that sodomy plays in the Robinson case and its relation to his fitness for office?
    I may or may not have said here, but several years ago I spent several days at Barnes and Noble reading my way through the “homosexual shelf.” This is not an exercise I recommend to anyone. Here homosexuals are speaking openly to their own,
    and one needs to have the strongest possible stomach to read of the practices of this subculture. Coarse and repellent barely describes it. And here one sees the evidence that belies the TEC suppostitious homosexual couple, faithful, committed, monogamous, blessed,normal in every way.
    However, I will not bring this subject up again on this thread. LM

  45. PadreWayne says:

    #44, and this will likely be my last comment on the subject, but you are the one who raised it…
    1. Sodomy is any sexual practice that is not coitus (look it up).
    2. Sodomy practices are not limited to homosexuals (look it up, ask around the locker room, or check old legal statutes) (although there were sodomy laws that were limited to homosexuals even though they recognized the practices were not).
    3. The “ick factor” I refer to is when people when having a normal conversation about homosexuality and the rights (or not) of homosexuals (secular or faith-based) bring up the word sodomy to conjure up the image of anal intercourse and thereby sensationalize and “ick-factorize” the conversation.
    4. You do not know whether or not Bishop Robinson and his partner practice your version of sodomy.
    5. You were obviously not looking at books such as Faith Beyond Resentment (James Alison), Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Rev William Countryman), Sacred Unions (The Rt Rev Thomas Breidenthal), or any of a number of other books I could recommend to you which go far beyond titillating, sensationalist, possibly pornographic materials you chose to look at. That’s a shame, Larry.
    6. One more note on your fixation with sodomy: You still have not addressed the question I posed about women — where are your arguments against lesbianism?

    And now… Perhaps we’ll return to the thread. Or not.

  46. john scholasticus says:

    #44
    ‘However, I will not bring this subject up again on this thread. LM’
    Not sure I believe you! But betya you bring it up on another thread!

    ‘And here one sees the evidence that belies the TEC suppostitious homosexual couple, faithful, committed, monogamous, blessed,normal in every way.’

    Here I strenuously disagree with you. It’s my experience that such couples are not ‘suppostitious’ (great word: does it exist?). THEY exist. I know some. They are my friends. I’m not going to abandon them. Nor are many so-called ‘normal’ people withn TEC or the C of E (not that I’m normal). If the Bishop of Durham himself were to come to our little church and denounce homosexuality from the pulpit, we’d just laugh at him – or maybe haul him down from the podium. And ‘we’ is not some stuck-up liberal rump: it’s most people (some very humble and uneducated) within Angicanism.

    So there.

    Your friend,
    John.