Loading ...Canterbury: Non-celibate gays shouldn’t have ‘representative function’ in Church
flockwoodDid you notice any howls of outrage from the Global South after the Episcopal Church embraced gay bishops and same-sex blessings? Neither did I. Apparently, they kept their powder dry, and allowed the Archbishop of Canterbury to speak first. And now Rowan Williams has spoken. And his message is going to infuriate supporters of full inclusion for gays and lesbians.
In his statement, released today, Williams does more than question the propriety of electing non-celibate bishops. He questions whether anyone who is sexually active outside the bonds of heterosexual, monogamous marriage should have a “representative function” in the church.
Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle.
To read his comments, click here.
h/t: StandFirminFaith.com
July 27th, 2009 at 9:12 am
If they would do this with integrity, and after letting gay people marry, ban anyone from ordained ministry who wasn’t either celebate or married for the first time (unless the first marriage had been dissolved for adultery from the non-ordained party) then OK. Otherwise, it’s all smoke and mirrors.
July 27th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
In the phrase that Fr. Van loves, let me get this straight. It would be okay for people in same sex marriages to serve in representative capacities within the church if the Anglican Communion as a whole sanctioned them, which it could do with the stroke of a pen. But because it hasn’t, they can’t.
I agree with Madge; this is like saying, in 1970 that it would be okay for women to serve as priests so long as they were properly ordained, which, well, we didn’t do at the time. I suspect that twenty years from now we’ll look back on this little diatribe in the same way we look at the diatribes against the ordination of women thirty years ago.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Actually, this “tiered” Communion is what the ++ABC has suggested all along since the election of +VGR in 2003. I am bemused at the people who are surprised by what he has written. Had the two extremes within the Anglican Wars, waited to break communion with each other, and Canterbury, I believe that the ++ABC would have worked a gracious compromise for all. Now, it waits to be seen. I think this is a strong statement in places, and one he probably hated to pen.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
One quibble, Fr. Van: The conservatives (whom I assume you mean to include as one of the “extremes”) broke with the Communion. The liberals didn’t; we’re still in there and working within the system. I agree, though, that if they hadn’t done this, the Archbishop might well have been able to broker a deal that would keep everyone in the same tent.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I agree. The conservatives, of which I am one, at least by Episcopalian standards, continued to break faith with the Windsor agreement, as did the bishops who led them out of TEC. They hurt themselves, TEC, and the communion by their willful actions…You probably already know what I think of the liberals votes at GC…The conservatives chose schism…The liberals will force it…When I use these terms “liberal” and “conservative” — I am really talking the extremes, not those of conscience who are one or the other, and wish to remain in faithful relationship with the Church…
July 27th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I think for what he has to work with, it was about the most fair thing he could have done, presently. Both side got a piece of what they wanted so it keeps the doors open on both ends. I need to read the rest of it.
July 27th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
I favor full inclusion of lgtb people in the Episcopal Church. I also think it is vitally important to be in some kind of relationship with world Anglicanism; as it is we are very inward-looking (not just on sexual matters). Therefore I am willing to take a hit for my beliefs by accepting membership in a two-tier Anglican Communion.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:34 am
If we try to divide Christ by theory of conservative or liberal we are wrong, as were 7 blind men in the story were wrong in describing an elephant. There is no conservative or liberal Christian, as long we are in one body. Jesus Christ is the only one way for the absolute truth. To understand Jesus thru Bible we do not require PhD in any discipline. He is as simple as a straight line as John the Baptist describe. There is no scope for describing Christ as half empty or half full glass or in other word today He is conservative tomorrow He would be liberal. Medical science may find now that same sex is as normal as hetero sex and nothing new to God, but still He forbids us from doing same sex activities, which contaminate our godly spirit as He forbad Adam and Eve not to eat a beautiful fruit grown in the middle of the Eden Garden. This is the mystery of life which is eternally true.
1st Gay Bishop of Episcopal Church is an adulterer in any standard. He was married with children and at the same time he was indulge in sex with his partner who is younger than him. We all become blind.
I am an adult Anglican. Episcopal Church betrays me in my spiritual journey.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Julian may be an adult Anglican, but therefore should rely on facts like an adult. When as a child, I too dealt in false assertions in an attempt to make my points, but as an adult, I put away childish things.
The “1st [sic] Gay Bishop of Episcopal Church” is not an adulterer in any standard. He was NOT married “at the same time he was indulge” in sex with his partner (who is non-sequiturially younger than him). He was already divorced when he met his partner; his former wife, in fact, had already remarried by the time he and his partner met.
This is all part of the now-very-public record surrounding Gene Robinson’s consecration as Bishop of New Hampshire.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Note: I was quoting the original commenter in most places. To clarify one thing: While Gene Robinson is not an adulterer in EVERY (as opposed to ANY) standard, he would be considered one by SOME standards, most notably in the Roman Catholic church and in some Anglican churches (such as still, I think, in the Church of England; cf. Edward VIII). He would not be considered an adulterer according to the canons of the Episcopal Church, however.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
What a good letter. It was impressive to see it was written about the Church and what its goals are. It was also impressive to see how living out of marriage and the gay life style are seen as the same in the eyes of the Church.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:09 am
I should have said living together out of marriage and living as a gay couple are viewed the same in the eyes of the church. Sorry about that.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Julian, that type of outdated view of what “God,” which means one group’s interpretation of God, forbids or doesn’t is not helpful in the current debate. When one makes absolute statements like that that disenfranchise millions of people for things over which they have no control, it doesn’t leave much room for compromise; it is difficult to ever compromise when one states any particular view as absolute.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Fr. Van, you’re right in your analysis, as usual. You seem one of the few moderate voices on the conservative side of the aisle; I’m sorry we don’t have more. I would love to see a negotiated solution for all this, even if it results in a two tiered Episcopal Church in the US.
August 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
The “deal” that was negotiated was the Windsor Report with its recommendations, as accepted by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in 2005 at their meeting in Dromantine. The deal, as witnessed to at Lambeth 2008, includes the continuing validity of 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10. There are no other deals at the global level in Anglicanism.
August 1st, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Well, if by “deal,” you mean the Anglican Communion telling the Episcopal Church what to do, you’re right. However, I don’t get the idea that the American church had much to do with shaping the content of that “deal.” And if there are no other deals, there needs to be. Clearly, the bringing in of primates from outside the US to supervise US dioceses was not part of that or any other deal, but might be included in a negotiated settlement. Right now, each party is doing what it wants and no one acts as if there is a deal at all.