Page 1 of 1
Poof Priests, but no shagging
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:01 pm
by Gob
The Church of England has dropped its prohibition on gay clergy in civil partnerships becoming bishops.
The announcement, from the Church's House of Bishops, would allow gay clergy to become bishops if they promise to be celibate.
Conservative evangelical Anglicans say they will fight the move in the Church's ruling general synod.
The issue has split the church since 2003 amid a row over gay cleric Jeffrey John becoming Bishop of Reading.
Mr John, now Dean of St Albans, was forced to withdraw from the role shortly after having initially accepted it, following protests from traditionalists.
He was also a candidate for Bishop of Southwark in 2010 but was rejected. Evidence emerged that this was because of his sexual orientation.
The Church of England has already agreed to allow people in civil partnerships to become clergy, provided they promised they would remain celibate.
In July last year, the House of Bishops (HoB) said it would review this decision, made in 2005, to decide whether it could also relate to bishops.
In the list of decisions at its latest meeting in December, it has now confirmed that those conditions could now extend to bishops.
This amounts to a lifting of the moratorium on the appointment of clergy in civil partnerships as bishops, the Church Times said.
Re: Poof Priests, but no shagging
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:08 pm
by Guinevere
But only male poof priests. Still no women of any kind allowed to be Bishops.
This so demonstrates what a load of crap the argument about no female Bishops is.
Re: Poof Priests, but no shagging
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:21 pm
by rubato
C'mon Gwen its a cultural thing. You wouldn't spoil such innocent and harmless fun would you?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Poof Priests, but no shagging
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:15 am
by MajGenl.Meade
I'm afraid this will do nothing to reduce bashing the Bishops in the CofE.
It's interesting in another way (so to speak). For the church to place a celibacy requirement on homosexual clergy in civil unions means one (or both) of two things
1. they recognize that the physical sex part (though not the orientation, so to speak) is a sin. It's rather as if the CofE is saying "Well you may have been a thief, murderer, liar, blasphemer, whatever, in the past but as long as you've stopped doing the actual sin, even if you still feel like it, then that shows repentance and etc." It is I think meant to be reflective of 1 Corinthians 6:11.
and/or
2. It's just a temporary "thin end of the wedge", "camels nose in the tent", lifting of the CofE's shirt (so to speak) to allow peeking until such time as their policy can become deeper (so to speak)
I also think Guin is quite correct to call it hypocrisy. It does show that the CofE along with other churches is only too willing to ditch the Word of God whenever it seems expedient.
Meade
Re: Poof Priests, but no shagging
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:31 am
by rubato
Have we the opinion of an honest Rabbi about what the word of god actually is? Or is this some modern interpretation of a corrupted translation into english?
Re: Poof Priests, but no shagging
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:36 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Re: Poof Priests, but no shagging
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:53 pm
by Big RR
Is Australia part of the C of E; as i recall, they allow female bishops onb a dioceses by diocess basis and have ordained (consecrated?) women bishops while those in England do not.
But I fail to see how allowing celibate gay bishops while not allowing women bishops is hypocritical. Granted failure to allow both is wrong (IMHO) and, with apologies to Meade, nowhere required biblically, but neither has anything to do with the other. The C of E may well be an old boys network, but allowing celibate gay priests in no way undercuts this. Of course, paul never wrote that gay men in a church should be prevented from having nay authority over non gay men (like he did for woemn), but maybe that was just as case of writer's cramp.
FWIW, I think it wrong to criticize an advance for one group because another group is still disadvantaged; it shouldn't stop the continuing fight to enfranchise the disadvantaged group, but it's still something to be celebrated.
Re: Poof Priests, but no shagging
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:28 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Big RR wrote: But I fail to see how allowing celibate gay bishops while not allowing women bishops is hypocritical. Granted failure to allow both is wrong (IMHO) and, with apologies to Meade, nowhere required biblically
Don't apologise to me; believe your Bible. Elders are to be the husband of but one wife and above reproach etc. Not one butt wife. That takes care of both issues. The CofE has chosen to throw out one restriction - husband of but one wife (nudge, nudge, wink wink - a man can be a 'wife' if he feels like it) - but not "husband" which is to say, males only. That's hypocrisy.
Guin's still correct
Meade
Re: Poof Priests, but no shagging
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:33 am
by Guinevere
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
I also think Guin is quite correct to call it hypocrisy. It does show that the CofE along with other churches is only too willing to ditch the Word of God whenever it seems expedient.
That's exactly why I think its hypocritical and undercuts their argument about female bishops -- not that the underpinnings of the biblical argument are the same (my understanding is they are different, although Meade points out where they could be argued to be the same) -- but that it shows the church is inconsistent in its arguments about following and interpreting the "rules." In my business, as soon as you start, what I'll call "inconsistent enforcement," you're done and you better not really try to enforce those rules again.
Re: Poof Priests, but no shagging
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:50 pm
by Big RR
Meade--was this pun
Not one butt wife
intentional--if so, I have to give you credit.
Guin--while I agree with you, my main concern is that someone would say "we can't have gay bishops because we might be called hypocrites by women" or vice versa. Doing the right thing in one case should not be condemned by other disenfranchised groups; sure, they should consecrate women as well, but I will not attack them for consecrating gays, while I wll for refusing to do so with women.
And Meade--you can interpret those passages as you see fit, as will I. I don't see it necessarily throwing out any biblical restriction, even though you do. Of course it's also been a long time since I held a slave or jsutified anyone punching a hole in a slave's ear. Is condemning that hypocrisy as well?
