Lambeth 1998, as I said, accepted homosexual orientation ”“ what some have regarded as “a natural attribute for some people,” that is, a natural predisposition toward people of the same sex ”“which has only been fully understood fairly recently. Even so, the Lambeth answer was to separate orientation from practice and commend celibacy.
But can celibacy be imposed? Shouldn’t it be freely undertaken as a personal vocation by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike? As Rowan Williams once put it, “anyone who knows the complexities of the true celibate vocation, would be the last to have any sympathy with the extraordinary idea that sexual orientation is an automatic pointer to a celibate life: almost as if celibacy before God is less costly, even less risky to the homosexual than the heterosexual.” And is not separating mind and body or feelings or orientation from practice a kind of dualism which the church has condemned in the past since human beings are a unified whole and cannot be compartmentalised in such a way. If that is true of humanity in general, why should we expect people of a homosexual disposition to be singled out in this way?
[i]there are no easy simple answers to complicated ethical problems[/i]
Uh, what does Holy Scripture say Archbishop?
“If the legislation to allow civil marriage is passed, I cannot see how we as a church, will be able to ignore the legality of the status of such partnerships and we ought not to want to do so.”
So, do not ignore their legality. It was legal to attend the Roman Games. Augustine went frequently. Then he decided it was not Christian conduct. How does not ignoring legality move immediately to a change in the church’s own marriage understanding?
[i]How does not ignoring legality move immediately to a change in the church’s own marriage understanding? [/i]
Exactly!
If the civil authorities make homocide legal, will we toss out that commandment thing?
One of the clearest statements about how we will secularize the church as fast as we can. Pretty out there brazen [or cowardly].
If the civil authorities make homocide legal.
That’s a bit like saying “if elephants could fly.”
Well, actually they have. Abortion is homocide. It’s not murder because it is legal, but it is homocide.
He’s looking for a nomination to the ABC post, not so much scripture or church history or tradition or ethics or any such.
“How does not ignoring legality move immediately to a change in the church’s own marriage understanding?”
Naturally enough, in an Erastian church (like, e.g., the Church of Sweden, and perhaps other similar state churches; and disestablished churches that ape the former).
Dear Dr. Morgan,
I believe you are advocating for an extraordinary and novel doctrine that is inconsistent with the historic teaching of the Church. If you disagree please provide me with…
1. A reference in scripture clearly affirming the morality of same sex activity.
2. A clear reference from any of the OEcumenical Councils to the above effect. And no, Lambeth doesn’t count.
3. A clear affirmation from the Fathers and or the saints of the permissibility of homosexual relations or marriage.
I have serious reservations about your ability to supply the requested quotes for the very good reason they don’t exist. There is a term for those who refute Christian doctrine. It is called heresy. That said the heresy here runs much deeper than attempting to redefine vice as virtue. It is the deeply embedded belief that you have the right to tell God that He needs to get with the times.
That in a nutshell seems to be prevailing article of faith in the Anglican Communion today. Let’s call it the 40th Article.
Wow, a welsh archbishop who supports same-sex “marriage”. We’d better make him Archbishop of Canterbury – that worked SO well last time. ;o)
[blockquote] “That in a nutshell seems to be prevailing article of faith in the Anglican Communion today. Let’s call it the 40th Article.” [/blockquote]
Don’t fall into the liberal trap of assuming that people like ++Morgan are a significant part of the Anglican Communion. They are actually quite a small minority (but they would like us to think that they are very very important!)
++Morgan writes:
[blockquote] “Lambeth 1998, as I said, accepted homosexual orientation – what some have regarded as “a natural attribute for some people,” that is, a natural predisposition toward people of the same sex –which has only been fully understood fairly recently.” [/blockquote]
Actually, Lambeth Resolution 1.10 was more qualified than the Archbishop admits. The relevant part said:
[blockquote] “This Conference: …recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation”. [/blockquote]
It does not say what anyone’s “natural attribute” is, but only what they “experience” or perceive. A minor point perhaps, but let’s not over-egg the pudding, dear Archbishop.
#4–O really? Ever hear of the Wannsee Conference?
What a windbag Bazza is.
“If that is true of humanity in general, why should we expect people of a homosexual disposition to be singled out in this way?”
Ummm, maybe ’cause we expect people of any disposition to sin to repent and refrain from sinning. I’m just sayin.
🙄
il sont perdu dans les mauvais herbes
Interesting the way the “archbishop” twists the arguments. He starts with the presupposition (which is false) that both forms of sexuality are normally accepted by the Christian faith, and then says that celibacy should be a vocation. He ignores the fact that celibacy is the right answer to a disordered sexuality. What he says may sound good to some, but it’s dangerous.