Dr [Barry] Morgan said the consecration of a gay bishop would no problem to him, although it might be for his church, and he would “alert” fellow leaders.
He said: “If I thought that a person who had been nominated was an excellent candidate in every other way and that he was in a faithful relationship – for me personally that would not present a problem.
“But of course it might present a problem for my church and I would have to alert the electoral college to that,” Dr Morgan added.
Bishop Robinson has been excluded from the Lambeth Conference, held every 10 years, but will be in Canterbury at the same time.
He is due to speak at St Mary’s Church in Putney, west London, on Sunday.
It seems that,
despite +++Williams plans for an “indaba” event at Lambeth,
the GLBT revisionists are attempting to make this Lambeth
an ‘in-your-face’ ‘triumphal march’ through all of the peripheral “weddings(?)/blessings(?), et cetera.
It seems that the collapse of the Western Anglican Provinces is accelerating. They must feel that no discipline from the direction of Canterbury is forthcoming.
Typical of the problem. “For me personally that would not present a problem.” Never mind the teachings of the Church or the Word of God in Holy Scripture. The ultimate source of authority is “me personally.”
Good Lord, deliver us.
[blockquote] Anglican conservatives set up a splinter movement earlier this month, in rejection of the acceptance of gay bishops.[/blockquote]
That’s a pretty big splinter!
Blake said that the statement “I think, therefore I am” was the most dangerous thought ever. God had been moved from the center of reality and man had taken this place. Now if it is not a problem for me personally, what is wrong with it?
Uhhhh, excuse me, but didn’t Canterbury say that Vickie Gene wouldn’t be allowed to preach at any church in the UK? Or is he allowed to “speak?” As far as I’m concerned, “speaking” is the same as preaching, the last I heard.
The treason of the elites.
The archbishop does reflect the popular sensibility: what is the big deal about a gay bishop? Of course, then there are the comparisons with drunkenness, murdering and all sorts of crimes that have little in common with fidelity. If anything, he probably is of the sensibility that it is better to marry than to burn.
#3, that’s what my former bishop did, in North Carolina. He read the Scripture and decided that, for him, there is no problem with same-sex practice.
Regardless of whether he is correct, he is indeed taking a stand. Perhaps a time has come for people to choose sides. Remaining ‘lukewarm’ has lead to too many problems-let’s lay down our hand.
[blockquote] He said: “If I thought that a person who had been nominated was an excellent candidate in every other way and that he was in a faithful relationship – for me personally that would not present a problem.” [/blockquote]
But wouldn’t a candidate’s being in a faithful same-sex relationship preclude his or her being an excellent candidate in every other way? If we are supposed to be agents of new creation isn’t it a little inconsistent to be in what represents a symptom of disordered creation?
Well, the Welsh Anglican Church (or what’s left of it) does try for episcopal ‘firsts’ (for their side of the pond). Until his recent death, they had a divorced-&-remarried bishop (+Bangor), then +St David’s resigned in the wake of his extra-marital affair with his female chaplain (he is orthodox!), so a gay bishop would be the trifecta of cool.
[blockquote]The archbishop does reflect the popular sensibility: what is the big deal about a gay bishop? Of course, then there are the comparisons with drunkenness, murdering and all sorts of crimes that have little in common with fidelity. If anything, he probably is of the sensibility that it is better to marry than to burn. [/blockquote]
But John, if modern science manages to explain these other pathologies through genetic determinism, why shouldn’t the Church make room for their pracititioners as well? Leave out the extreme example of murderers and ask why the episcopate shouldn’t be open to pedophiles, coprophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles, etc? Did Jesus ever condemn them by name?
This is no slippery slope argument…they are implicit in +Morgan’s address.
Once again, :for me, personally…” is at the heart of the problem. This is the language of affect, and should not be judged as if it had any referent outside the speaker’s feelings. To say that he should be paying attention to scripture is no longer relevant. Can you understand this? He has no cause to care what scripture says, because he is not speaking that language. LM
Well, I guess the Bishop of Durham was not quite correct, this isn’t “just and American problem.”
Jefferson, how are homosexuals like “pedophiles, coprophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles.” They seem to be of different categories to me. My own assumption that, if a sexual relationship is part of what makes a moral character, that mature sexual behavior happens between consenting adults with free will. I’m not sure why this seems controversial.
My view is that the idea that homosexuality is “disordered” is more of a bias than anything empirically proven. If anything, the most dangerous thing the church has given us are years of immature, closeted, gay male clergy.
Although they did give us lace, pink, and dresses.
[blockquote]Jefferson, how are homosexuals like “pedophiles, coprophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles.†They seem to be of different categories to me. My own assumption that, if a sexual relationship is part of what makes a moral character, that mature sexual behavior happens between consenting adults with free will. I’m not sure why this seems controversial.
My view is that the idea that homosexuality is “disordered†is more of a bias than anything empirically proven. If anything, the most dangerous thing the church has given us are years of immature, closeted, gay male clergy. [/blockquote]
I’m not sure why you make the assumption, John, that all actors in a relationship must be adults or of the same species, alive or not just an object. Now you’re putting Jesus in a very small box and being narrow-minded.
+Morgan made no such distinction, as was my point. As long as “science” can provide the determinism toward sex with animals, children or fecal matter, there is nothing preventing the application of the principles now being deployed in service to another sexual sin to those I’ve mentioned. Just saying they are “another category” is a pretty weak argument and one that will ultimately prove to be less than a speedbump on the road to embracing these disorders. Remember, homosexuality used to be a DSM-listed disorder, but was deleted when gays applied political pressure. All these other disorders lack is a constituency.
Is homosexuality disordered? Disordered is too vague for me to answer clearly. Do you mean, “Is homosexuality a significantly abnormal?” This can be answered clearly. On a bell shaped curved for human sexuality, ” pure” homosexuality (and I mean by “pure,” genetic and therefore unalterable) will be over on the far end. I suppose beastiality will be farther on the tail of the curve because their numbers are probably fewer. But it will be beyond pedophilia, for example, because pedophilia will include both males and females as sex objects, and the history of the Roman church (and the the viler portions of the internet) show us how large the numbers are.
Does this match what you mean by disordered? LM
Jefferson, so mutual consent and free will are… “weak arguments” or unimportant categories? That’s an interesting view point. I’ve basically demonstrated that the other sorts of sexual urges are trivial or outside church law, and you dismiss them without an argument.
I suppose once you can convince me that a child, an animal or fecal matter can say “I do” with free will, well, you win. But this is perhaps an example of how we see things differently: for you homosexuals are pedophiles or zoophiles or the like. That’s your instinct. I don’t see the slippery slope. Adult human beings are what the issue is about.
Personally, I think that men and women like individuals, and the sex of the individuals is not important. I’m not planning to get married with any woman. There is a specific person.
I’m amused that you think that science can’t be objective: there’s a word for it – relativism. Now why not consider a more pressing issue: marrying robots. Heterosexual robots. Or heterosexual-looking robots. That’s far more likely and worth some debate. But comparing gay people to pedophiles or the like is an example of homophobia. They are of different sets. The only thing you can assert is that they are “disordered” and that is simply your bias. You don’t give any criteria for what being “disordered” looks like. I did: the desire for something that does not have agency or free will.
[blockquote] You don’t give any criteria for what being “disordered†looks like. I did: the desire for something that does not have agency or free will. [/blockquote]
John, I think a good definition of ‘disordered’ can be derived from what Paul says in Romans 1. A disordered condition is what God (reluctantly) gives people up to when they insist on behaving in ways that run contrary to what God intended for his created order. A disordered condition is what results when people “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…”
It isn’t all about you, John, #18, believe it or not. Your narcissism is apparently making you think I care one whit for what you think should or should not be included in the sexual innovations of the Anglican Communion. I don’t. What I was discussing here were the foolish and reckless ideas of the Archbishop of Wales. And his criteria are far less restrictive than the ones you’ve hastily concocted here, farcical as they are.
No, having now discarded Scripture for the worship of Science, Dr. Morgan has kicked in the doors you believe will hold back the throngs of pedophiles, coprophiles, etc. All that remains to be done is to find the gene, the hormone, the syndrome that makes it “natural” and the next mutation of Integrity will be agitating again for “inclusiveness.”
Again the Religious Left takes it cues from the culture instead of informing it. Remember this thread when you’re aghast at what your Church has become. It won’t be long.
Jefferson – you’re quite astute at the name calling. Next time, address the argument. You still insist that homosexuals are of the same set, but you refuse to give evidence. That’s too bad. And if you really believe there is a gene for pedophilia, crapophobia, or zoophilia, then I hope you find it. Your instinctive anger towards homosexuals, alas, makes it difficult to have a reasoned discussion.
As far as taking my cues from the culture: this merits some discussion. I think that the “biblical culture” is a bit strange for us. Much rather 21st century America than 1st century Palestine. It is my bias. I’m a proud American. I also admit, I have a critique of the church that is direct: accepting gay people is a trivial part of it. Even conservative churches are dying, Jefferson. There are deeper reasons than homosexuality. You might want to explore them.
John Wilkins, what do you propose to do abut the “B” part of the GLBT group? Surely if someone is bisexual, and loves two persons, one of each sex, you are not going to violate his deeply-held feelings by refusing him the ability to marry both, are you?
The problem with the usual justification for SSR comes in that the same could be said of incest. For example if a brother and sister -both adults- both caring – both loving chose to have a sexual relationship and agreed it would be with the consent of both and in no way physically harmful, especially as he was found to be infertile; would it be morally ok?
If not how would they differ from two men?
#23, I was a young woman when the first women were illegally ordained in the U.S. People at that time argued that this would inevitably lead to same-sex marriage. “Oh, come on, you old fools!” I said to myself. I was wrong. When we state that men and women are not just equal but the same, and when we make feelings the ultimate standard, there are no rational limits, other than children — and that’s being defined down.
I look at the gay community and see women who want to be with another woman who looks like a man, two men who want to be with another while one of them acts like a woman, men who dress like women, women who dress like men, women who want to become men, men who want to become women, men who want to be with men and women, women who want to be with women and men. John, THIS is the very essence of “intrinsically disordered.” It’s very, very sad, and nothing about it is blessed by God.
[blockquote]Jefferson – you’re quite astute at the name calling. Next time, address the argument. You still insist that homosexuals are of the same set, but you refuse to give evidence. That’s too bad. And if you really believe there is a gene for pedophilia, crapophobia, or zoophilia, then I hope you find it. Your instinctive anger towards homosexuals, alas, makes it difficult to have a reasoned discussion. [/blockquote]
Since it’s escaped your gimlet-eyed perception, I was the one addressing the issue here; specifically the statements made my Archbishop Morgan and the likely consequences thereof. Please don’t get offended if I ask you to stay on topic. If you find Dr. Morgan’s views indefensible, just say so.
You will notice, however, that Dr. Morgan does not seem to be waiting for the scientific evidence to embrace the gay lifestyle.