The daughter of a priest, Glasspool was one of two openly gay candidates on the Los Angeles slate but maintained that her sexual orientation was “not an issue” in the election.
Really.
Actually, the pressure to make history is now so high in the church that I think it’s actually only a matter of time before some ambitious priest, desperate to get ahead, somewhere gets hired under the assumption that he/she is gay and it later turns out they are not. Many parishes and dioceses are thinking about hiring the first gay/lesbian _______. Imagine ‘reverse Paul Moores’ decades from now revealing their straight lovers they hid from the church! Surely the straight candidates in today’s election realize how much being openly straight hurt them.
RE: “but maintained that her sexual orientation was “not an issue†in the election.”
Of course . . . it was precisely “the issue”. The gay activists campaigned because she was a non-celibate gay. And others in the diocese resisted her election for the precise same reason. Just imagine how much frantic lobbying went on between the fifth and the sixth ballot. ; > )
Unless you were a delegate at this convention and talked with other delegates, please don’t assume you know what was going on between ballots and what the issues were for the delegates. In fact, I was quite impressed by the respectful nature of the delegates toward one another. I am sure there was some lobbying going on, as there no doubt was in the initial election of the weekend (remember, we did have two) and is at any episcopal election, but I was pleasantly surprised by how little it was evident to most delegates and how many issues other than sexual orientation were the subject of discussions of candidates.
It disturbs me greatly, and insults all the delegates whatever their vote, to have our individual prayerful, considered decisions reduced to the consequence of either gay activism or resisting the same.
Mobetsy, I understand that there were many issues that were prayerfully and respectfully considered by the delegates. But most of these issues were of local concern while only one issue had global consequences. It is precisely the attitude of local delegates that they can do what they want without regard for the local consequences that is tearing apart the Anglican Communion, and disturbs the Archbishop of Canterbury and other leaders.
The delegates of the Diocese of Los Angeles had no right to take independent action on a concern that can only be acted upon by conciliar action at the highest levels of the church. The hubris that the needs of Los Angeles are more important than the needs of the global Church is shameful.
The daughter of a priest, Glasspool was one of two openly gay candidates on the Los Angeles slate but maintained that her sexual orientation was “not an issue” in the election.
Really.
Actually, the pressure to make history is now so high in the church that I think it’s actually only a matter of time before some ambitious priest, desperate to get ahead, somewhere gets hired under the assumption that he/she is gay and it later turns out they are not. Many parishes and dioceses are thinking about hiring the first gay/lesbian _______. Imagine ‘reverse Paul Moores’ decades from now revealing their straight lovers they hid from the church! Surely the straight candidates in today’s election realize how much being openly straight hurt them.
RE: “but maintained that her sexual orientation was “not an issue†in the election.”
Of course . . . it was precisely “the issue”. The gay activists campaigned because she was a non-celibate gay. And others in the diocese resisted her election for the precise same reason. Just imagine how much frantic lobbying went on between the fifth and the sixth ballot. ; > )
Unless you were a delegate at this convention and talked with other delegates, please don’t assume you know what was going on between ballots and what the issues were for the delegates. In fact, I was quite impressed by the respectful nature of the delegates toward one another. I am sure there was some lobbying going on, as there no doubt was in the initial election of the weekend (remember, we did have two) and is at any episcopal election, but I was pleasantly surprised by how little it was evident to most delegates and how many issues other than sexual orientation were the subject of discussions of candidates.
It disturbs me greatly, and insults all the delegates whatever their vote, to have our individual prayerful, considered decisions reduced to the consequence of either gay activism or resisting the same.
Mobetsy, I understand that there were many issues that were prayerfully and respectfully considered by the delegates. But most of these issues were of local concern while only one issue had global consequences. It is precisely the attitude of local delegates that they can do what they want without regard for the local consequences that is tearing apart the Anglican Communion, and disturbs the Archbishop of Canterbury and other leaders.
The delegates of the Diocese of Los Angeles had no right to take independent action on a concern that can only be acted upon by conciliar action at the highest levels of the church. The hubris that the needs of Los Angeles are more important than the needs of the global Church is shameful.
…That should be, without regard for GLOBAL consequences.