Let’s talk about the sexual orientation of clergy and same-sex marriage, which have been quite controversial in the church and the subject of a few stories in the press over the past few years.
When it comes to us, it seems like the media does what the media does. It has to sell its product. I think if we had more free media it might be different, but we don’t.
I would say, Bishop, that when you have congregations splitting off in protest, that’s worthy of reporting, and it has nothing to do with free versus paid media. So, to finish, I’d like to ask you: Do you have a position on these issues?
The Diocese of Texas is very conservative, and it has a very traditional understanding of marriage. I do not see my work as trying to change that. Even though there is a great diversity of points of view on this topic, the people of the diocese will not see changes in how we look at same-sex blessings or unions, nor on the topic of ordination of bishops. Now””and this is the important part for me””I grew up in a diverse culture and have friends who are gay and lesbian. The reality of our diocese is that we have gays and lesbians who go to our churches. They find their spiritual journeys entwined with our own in this place. So when I make the statement that things will not change, there is a great deal of pain. I am unwilling to pretend that pain is not there. Where there is love, there is always a great deal of pain, and I love the people of the Diocese of Texas. That love is not a love that is bound by issues of sexuality.
This is a very revealing posting. To summarize: Andy wants to push gay rights, but he knows his diocese won’t go for it, so he’s just biding his time.
How did this guy get elected Bishop for Life? Didn’t they know who the were picking? Or do they teach a class in Stealth Social Activism at Virginia Theological Seminary?
#1, yeah, now that he’s elected, +Doyle barely tries to conceal that his personal views are at odds with the majority of his Texan flock. He’s claiming to embrace the same sort of paradoxical (if not downright inconsistent) position that ++Rowan Williams has claimed for himself as the spokesperson for the AC (personally liberal, but institutionally loyal). [b]And how’s that worked for the AC?[/b]
It reminds me of when a politician (especially a Catholic politician) claims to be “personally opposed” to abortion but obligated to support and uphold the pro-choice laws of the state. Yeah, right. And if you believe that, I’ve got some land in Florida I’d love to sell you…
Watch out, St. Martin’s, Houston! Or St. John the Divine, and other orthodox parishes.
Just look at what happened in another formerly great, centrist diocese with a supposedly centrist bishop, namely, VA and +Peter Lee. Doyle has taken a page out of the same playbook that +Lee followed for many years. Just look how it all ended in VA.
David Handy+
+Doyle seems like quite a smart guy! I’m impressed.
Watch out +Andy! Because you “have friends who are gay and lesbian,” aren’t going to kick them out of the church, and are sympathetic, people will say to you that you’re part of a nefarious agenda, and that you’re working for Gay Rights. If you won’t make gay people into scapegoats, you’ll be one yourself.
When you are also obeying the biblical injunctions about the immigrant, the widow and the poor, you’ll be accused of being a “social activist” rather than a Christian. It’s part of the course.
Bishop Doyle does sound a bit like a weasel.
After all, if recognition of same sex relationships is a matter of justice, and a matter of Gospel truth, then he should push for it — a bishop’s job is to teach.
If, on the other hand, the traditional understanding of human sexuality is correct, he should teach that — a bishop’s job is to teach.
It comes to this — the bishop of New Hampshire is wrong, but at least he has the integrity of following his convictions. I don’t see finding even that (limited) level of respect for this guy.
(But then, we’ve got nothing to crow about in the diocese of Southwest Florida, either).
#3, I haven’t seen that many straw men in one place since the last audition for Wizard of Oz. But you knew that, dincha?
I live in a city within the Diocese of Texas. There is no effort whatsoever to rein in parishes which are drifting far beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
[i] Ad hominem comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Is it just me, or do too many TEC clergy have unresolved image issues and (dread) use parishes to work out their own lives? I heard that this AM in a sermon. The priest lumped the current redefinition of marriage heresy as just one of many “developments” that were implicitly OK with him. He used the fact that he is a divorced man married to his now wife. Ah yes, I see. Redefining marriage is in the same category as the Prayer Book controversy and allowance for the divorced to remarry. No way to see it other than through one’s own experience and failings, I suppose. Great Unitarian stuff today.
Same sex relationships are not, really a matter of justice. This is where the “progressives” have it wrong. Nobody is entitled to relationships.
A more credible “progressive” view is not based on justice, but on utility – “it is better to marry than to burn.” Marriage is a way of controlling one’s sexual urges, and helps build the fruits of the spirit.
I’m amused – a bishop who has decided to uphold conservatism in practice is considered a weasel. Heh – if these are his friends….
Orthodox Anglicans still in the few remaining orthodox dioceses in TEC, take note. This is PRECISELY the sort of transitional bishop that will replace your orthodox bishop when the time comes. The establishment won’t force a hardcore revisionist on you right away, but that’s the next step. This is why there is NO longterm future in TEC.
Chris [#10] is absolutely right. As for this particular transitional bishop, check this out from an interview in the Austin American Statesman archives (June 30, 2008):
Some people, he said, ask him what he will do about priests who reject the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Nothing, he says. Some priests have always argued that.
“I guess I’m just not that worried,” he said. And, he added, he doesn’t want history to judge him by whether he “checked the right boxes” on controversial questions.
That’s funny, I just Googled the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas and it keeps giving me a document that says, “Whatever.”
I saw this quote once (but don’t remember the author):
“A tamed lion is an unnatural lion, and therefore, untrustworthy.”
This is Doyle (and the ABC, and others). If these articles can be read as Doyle agrees with the GLBT lobby but won’t do anything about it, then it makes him the tamed lion. It is natural to support and defend that which you believe. So Doyle becomes untrustworthy because he refuses to defend what he believes.
Adding to his troubles is that if we’re wrong and he really is conservative, he is just as untrustworthy because he refuses to defend the conservative side as well.
But this was true of his predecessor. He learned well. Welcome to hell.