Gay Bishop?

[ethics]

Everybody is going to be making a lot of the fact that he's gay, but that's not the point. The point is he's well qualified, he comes from within the diocese and has the admiration of parishioners and clergy here."

The words of Bayard Coolidge, a delegate from St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Pittsfield, N.H., explains the position of those who recently voted (http://www.charleston.net/stories/060803/wor_08gay.shtml) for the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson to become the first openly gay bishop in world's Anglican community.

In overseeing the New Hampshire diocese, Robinson would be a trailblazer in the Anglican Communion, which has about 79 million members worldwide. But whether Robinson is ever installed as bishop is another matter. The Episcopalian national leadership still must approve Robinson's election by a two-thirds margin during its July convention -- which means a showdown looms between the church's more conservative wing and more progressive followers. If Robinson is approved, the possibility exists that the U.S. branch of the church could lose recognition (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/08/1055010875565.html) from the international body.

While Robinson is popular because of his works within his own diocese and observers have found that Episcopals in general are increasingly tolerant of gay clergy and same-sex unions, other Episcopalian leaders do not see his election as good news.

Well, what say you? Is this something good or bad?

 

[Violet1966]

I have no problem with an openly gay Episcopal Bishop. It's been in the news here since the other day and I see no problem with it. If Episcopal Bishops are allowed to have a sexual preference in their position, then why should it be an issue??? If he is openly hetero it wouldn't matter to me either. All that I would care about...is if he was really a hetero or gay pedophile and he's not gonna be coming out and admitting to that if he is ;)

[cdw]

ethics... I want you to remember it's you that opened this can of worms rofl

For me, I don't care. The question is not if he is gay or straight, but will he live up to the things he says he believes in. Will he hold himself to a higher standing than those of the parishioners and will he not abuse the trust that they place in him. That goes for all of the heads of churches regardless of their religion, sex and sexual preference. That, IMO, is the only thing that matters.

[IamZed]

If he is openly gay it is fine with me. More power to him.

[melpomene]

An Anglican Bishop who is Gay.

What a hypocrit. Practice what you preach!

So on the one hand he stands before the congregation, professing living by the bible and exclaiming the sanctity of the union of the male and the female..............and on the other hand he is gay. He is opening up a whole new can of worms in his community. I hope he is ready for it. I hope he is ready for the twists and turns in the definition, that is hypocrisy.

[Fiona]

I have no problem with a gay Episcopalian Bishop either... but I have a problem with the church supporting it. They take women who cheat on their husbands out of the nursery. Not worthy of caring for the children. The remove the adultering deacon from his position... not a good role model. the church is clear that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. Therefor they should not support it's practice in any form in it's leadership in any form. Again... it doesn't bother ME.... I'm such a fencewalker. :)

[cdw]

No wonder I don't belong to a church... too many damned rules!!

[Coot]

More to the point, I guess is what does it matter? There seems to be some pre-held misconception that what churches tend to do...tends to matter.

While many Americans may hold themselves to be ostensibly Christian, in reality few are. What they do is identify with the religion rather than practice it. Now, when you hone in on a particular sect of a largely unpracticed religion and identify something new they are doing that violates one of their many tenets, you are likely to evoke some tongue clicking and some 'I told ya so's' etc.

I really believe that if the pope hisself pronounced that GWB was Satan incarnate, there'd be damned few catholics or christians of any other flavor willing to attempt to crush the head of the serpent. Religion, for the vast majority, is genial and not spiritual, and as such it is a weekly function rather than a fervent belief.

Just exactly who is listening to Osama Falwell (I mean other than the press). Those numbers (the real ones) have to be pretty damned small.

What any marginally christian church is doing is largely irrelevant. They can advocate gay bishops, pedophilic priests, snake dancing, speaking in tongues or living a life according to the gospel of jesus christ and about all it gets is a press honorable mention and some amount of commentary from people who feel they have a 'position' on the 'issue'.

[Fiona]

I take exception to your last post coot... But i do accept that MOST are that way

[RRedline]

Mel, do you have a daughter that you would be interested in selling to me? If she gets out of line, I promise not to injure her eyes or her teeth [Exodus 21:26-27].

Silly, isn't it? But something tells me that you would call a slave-owning Christian a hypocrite.

[Stiofán]

Originally posted by Coot


Just exactly who is listening to Osama Falwell (I mean other than the press). Those numbers (the real ones) have to be pretty damned small.



The media centers and urban areas not withstanding, actually quite a few. He's very popular across the rural areas of the nation. His own congregation numbers over 25,000.

[melpomene]

Originally posted by RRedline
Mel, do you have a daughter that you would be interested in selling to me? If she gets out of line, I promise not to injure her eyes or her teeth [Exodus 21:26-27].

Silly, isn't it? But something tells me that you would call a slave-owning Christian a hypocrite.

Red, come on. You know that i am in complete support on an individual's choice of their sexual preference.

*groan*

Stand back, and look at it. Really, stand on the side line and watch.

Its hypocrisy............................and hypocrisy at its worst. :mad:

[RRedline]

Originally posted by melpomene
Red, come on. You know that i am in complete support on an individual's choice of their sexual preference.

*groan*

Stand back, and look at it. Really, stand on the side line and watch.

Its hypocrisy............................and hypocrisy at its worst. :mad: I know that it is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy to cherry pick out of the Bible and gloss over some widely shunned things such as the slavery etiquette found in Exodus.

Explain to me why Leviticus counts, but Exodus doesn't? I am not trying to be funny at all. I just want to know if there is a logical answer that I have not thought of.

Why is it Biblically wrong for "man to lie with another man," yet it is not okay for one to own slaves? Are they not both the word of God?

How about eating shellfish? Is it wrong for a Christian to eat shellfish [Lev. 11:10]? Is a shellfish-eating Christian a hypocrite?

I am trying to understand how "Christians" decide which parts of the Bible count and which ones don't.

[IamZed]

Episcopals are not Catholics. If they can accommodate this sort of thing, good for them.
The act of hiding shit from the light leads to, well, shady characters. Get it out. Get it out in the light and let us all examine it for its worth. Things get discarded that were never looked at closely enough.
Unfortunately my family is Catholic. My cousin is a nun. She spent two decades in Africa doing humanitarian work with children. That I can not toss off lightly in my assessment of her. Well she is gay, as I would assume many of her fellow nuns are.
My sister wanted to be married by the Catholic Church. Can’t happen.
I understand all this as I have lived with it for many years. It is a conflict that actually may never be won by the gay percentage of us all.
It is what it is.

[Violet1966]

Originally posted by IamZed
Episcopals are not Catholics. If they can accommodate this sort of thing, good for them.


Exactly. The Episcopal church is like a substitute Catholic church in the fact that they have the same rituals I believe, but are more flexible and allow more than the Catholic church allows. From what I've learned about the Episcopal church, they also condone and perform gay marriages. They also have women priests if I remember correctly.

[melpomene]

Originally posted by RRedline
I know that it is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy to cherry pick out of the Bible and gloss over some widely shunned things such as the slavery etiquette found in Exodus.

Explain to me why Leviticus counts, but Exodus doesn't? I am not trying to be funny at all. I just want to know if there is a logical answer that I have not thought of.

Why is it Biblically wrong for "man to lie with another man," yet it is not okay for one to own slaves? Are they not both the word of God?

How about eating shellfish? Is it wrong for a Christian to eat shellfish [Lev. 11:10]? Is a shellfish-eating Christian a hypocrite?

I am trying to understand how "Christians" decide which parts of the Bible count and which ones don't.

I agree with you Red

and doesnt it make the whole hypocrisy of the churches, even more blatant, by having a Gay Bishop at the pulpit.

[Steve]

I'm against this.

I don't care if he's gay, or qualified. More power to him.

What I do care about is that he, and the congregation that elected him, are acting against the edicts of their particular faith.

For a gay bishop, or a congregation that supports him, to demand that their denomination accept and support something that the denomination denounces is to impose their will, to attempt to force the denomination to change its beliefs and edicts.

Want to be a gay bishop? Want a gay bishop for your congregation? Go ahead. Start your own denomination, like Martin Luther did when he renounced many of the more egregious practices of the Catholic Church of his time. Feel free to practice whatever beliefs you want. But don't attempt to force others to practice what you believe to be right.

I apply this to this situation, to American Catholics who want the Church to lighten up on the birth control issue, and to any members of a religious denomination that disagree with tenets central to that belief structure.

You may attempt to change it, by example. You may create your own denomination. But demanding that others support something with which they strongly disagree goes against everything I believe in, and that's why I disagree with this bishop and his congregation.

[cdw]

Is anyone here of the Episcopalian Faith? Do we know that this IS against the edits of their faith?
And what if their edits are slowly changing...they aren't allowed to do that? To grow as people?

Just wondering....



edit: spelling

[Fiona]

Episcopals are not catholics...true... they are LIKE catholics, without the worshipping of the pope... they believe you can go thru christ rather than the pope and saints... pretty much the main difference ( i grew up in Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian churches)

[Domh]

Hm. It is more convenient all around to buy into the parts of the book you want to and vice versa, isnt it?

;)

[RRedline]

Originally posted by domhain
Hm. It is more convenient all around to buy into the parts of the book you want to and vice versa, isnt it?

;) Exactly...and going against the church is heresy - a horrible sin worthy of Hell. But if you make your own denomination, then you make a new church with new rules, and suddenly you are no longer a heretic, and therefore back on the road to Heaven. Isn't it all just grand?

[cdw]

I don't see why anyone would care unless they are Episcopalian.
If you aren't, then it doesn't concern you and your religion.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by cydweeks
I don't see why anyone would care unless they are Episcopalian.
If you aren't, then it doesn't concern you and your religion. I am not a boy scout, so should I not have an opinion on their stance against homosexuals? I am not Catholic (anymore), so should I not care about how they handle priests who molest children?

I really don't see how you can make that statement, Cyd. And by the way, I fully support any church's right to allow whomever they wish into their clubs. It is freedom of association. I just don't understand, nor do I condone, why church leaders preach some of the stuff they do, and that is why I often find myself mixed up in issues such as this one. Plus, I was molested by the Catholic church as a boy, and I'm bitter. ;)

[cdw]

I don't think the boy scouts and a church are the same thing.
Nor do I think that having a gay minister compares at all to the molestation of children by anyone even the church.
The contention above is that it is against the edicts of the presbyterian faith to have a gay minister. My contention is that it does not effect you if you aren't a member of that religion and church.
That's all. You can have an opinion all ya want, lol. My opinion is, who cares if you aren't presbyterian? It's their religion. They can do what they want with it.

And, I'm sorry for your experience. But you were molested by a priest, not the church. If the others in the church would not stand up and be counted against it, then you were abandoned by those people. Not the faith, not the church. The people. They are all just people. Which is why I don't belong to one. It's not realistic to put such faith and belief in a person because they are a priest, pastor, whatever. Anyway, that's my opinion for what it's worth.
lol.. how do I get into these discussions?

[IamZed]

The only problem I see with gay men attaining high positions in any church involves the denial that they are gay. We worry about how our children will be influenced or handled. If a Bishop is openly gay then that is honest and anyone who has fears of the gay are not deceived, but well informed what is going on.
So the openness should remove the stigmata the Catholic church has burdened all men of the cloth with. That just leaves how do I feel about this person as a man. As a kid I would sit and listen to long (and I mean long) sermons from priests about marriage, childrearing, love, all the basic elements of our lives.
I will be quite offensive now but Jesus Christ, the guy wasn’t even gay. He was less than that, he was a nothing, and that is fundamentally incorrect in my mind. I would rather be enlightened by one that knows love on this earth than a man that does not, or is lying.
As long as this Bishop is open about his sexual preference I can sit and hear his words with more respect for him than I can some spiritual eunuch.

[cdw]

Besides...re-reading the original post, this guy already is a priest.
He is a reverend already. This is just to make him a bishop. So, since they accepted him as a reverend what is the big deal?

[Violet1966]

Originally posted by cydweeks
Besides...re-reading the original post, this guy already is a priest.
He is a reverend already. This is just to make him a bishop. So, since they accepted him as a reverend what is the big deal?

Exactly and the Epicopal church has been known to be liberal as far as homosexuality goes. Up here...the local papers were saying it was a big deal with the more conservative of Episcopals. The issues on homosexuality is apparently dividing the church but at the top...the church is accepting of homosexuals. Really no big deal to me and actually for almost 20 years I've known that the Episcopal church marries gay couples so I can't see a gay bishop as anything more extreme than that. It's nothing new that this church is more accepting than the Catholic church is. Been that way for a loooooooong time.

[RRedline]

Cyd, I was never molested by a priest, or anyone else for that matter. I said I was molested by the Catholic Church. Perhaps I was being overly sarcastic with my choice of words. ;)

And while I agree that priests may be more likely to molest children than non-priests, I don't think it has anything to do with homosexuality. It probably has more to do with their lifestyle of celibacy than anything else. Or perhaps sexually messed up people (i.e.: pedophiles) are more likely to become priests to try to contain themselves?

Does anyone remember reading about the nuns' stories of sexual abuse by other nuns and priests? Stories came out during the child molestation scandal, but it didn't get much attention. Sexual abuse against anybody is a very serious issue.

I look at churches' disdain for homosexuals in exactly the same manner that I look at the KKK's disdain for blacks and Jews. I don't like it, but I am not trying to force them to change the rules of their organizations.

[cdw]

rofl RRedline.... you KNOW that you are talking to the country bumpkin and I haven't a CLUE what you mean that you were molested by the church.

I'm still not sure, but I think you and I agree in someway, lol