Who thinks it is a good idea to stop openly Gay Clergy being ordained as Bishops? Who can consider what another is doing is perverse just because it is not their bag? A hetrosexual Bishop is free to practise BDSM , S&M and a whole range of weird, depraved and bizzare XXX in total freedom. (providing it is with adults obviously) But a Bishop says says he likes sex with men, and the Anglican Church hit the roof. The church is still as backward as ever.
I think your logic is flawed. Yes, you are correct in saying that one is free to practice all of the things you mentioned, but whether it is condoned by the church or not is an entirely different matter. If the church upholds the teachings of the Bible, then it has an obligation to put a stop to homosexual ordinations. To not do so would be hypocritical. If the church teaches and believes that homosexuality is an abomination as stated in the Bible yet ordains gay clergy, there is a clear conflict.
Wisdom! Let us NOT attend! It should indeed, and most of us with strong opinions on the issue have already expressed them. Why be agitated by someone most of whose posts have been trollish advocacy of standardless DL replete with doubletalk and logomachy? In other words, start your own fights, friends, don't be drawn like carnivorous sheep! Janko the Priest-Philosophe
Wonder if Fred is behind The Guardian's telling Americans how to vote in the upcoming presidential election. From: UK Paper Urges Readers to Lobby US Voters By Patrick Goodenough CNSNews.com Pacific Rim Bureau Chief October 15, 2004
Unless we are talking about the Universal Life Church, bishops exist within a denominational context. I suppose that there is considerable importance in having clergymen and their bishops adhere (with some wiggle room perhaps) to the traditions and doctrines of their denomination. If the denomination has strong views on ordaining open and active gay clergy, then I'm inclined to think that individual ordinations and consecrations should respect the denomination's views. I have no personal objection to homosexuality or to gay clergy. I do think that gay clergy are more appropriate in denominations that welcome them. I would say the exact same thing about female clergy and bishops. Frankly, I welcome both gay and female clergy. I think that it's wonderful that their spirituality and calling is recognized. I'd be hesitant to identify with a church that rejected them. But if their existence constitutes spitting in the eye of their denomination, maybe they need to look for a new denomination. I'm not sure that's always true. But once again, I'd leave it up to the particular denomination. I suspect that the Anglican communion (and the American Episcopal church) are headed for a schism over all of these issues that illustrate the growing gap between liberals and conservatives. Part of the problem is Anglican polity itself, with each national church self-governing but all of them expected to stay on the same page through "consensus". That's obviously not working. But the problem is deeper than that, since the splits are also present within national churches. If things come to the point of the US Episcopal church leaving the Anglican communion, I wonder how many rank and file American clergy and laymen will choose Episcopal (liberal) and how many Anglican (conservative). The liberals dominate the US hierarchy and have already announced that they will retain possession of all of the church's property. So a schism would head directly into the secular court system. I can imagine sheriff's deputies arriving armed with court orders to seize church buildings from their traditionalist congregations, being met by civil disobedience in front of the TV cameras. (Fox would simply love it.) There might be some good Caesar/lions action going before long.
How about if we just stop them from being clergy, period? They are? Show us some documentation. What if he said he liked to have sex with a German Shepherd? Would that be okay too? The fact is that gay sex is not natural and is immoral. If these "gay clergy" don't agree with that, that is their choice, but they shouldn't call themselves clergy at all. Actually the church is on the cutting edge.
All true but years ago Snoopy complained about the paperwork required for his annual report to the head beagle...
Dogs lick themselves. Surely there is something in the Bible that outlaws that. Although is it a cleanliness thing, in which case it's right next to godliness, or is it a sexual thing, in which case it's an abomination? I don't know, as long as the dog goes to confession and takes communion, I see no problem with it.
For something that's not natural, it sure has an impressive rate of occurence within nature. All those gay sheep, dogs and monkeys - they're going to burn eternally for their wickedness. Perhaps a kind lemur or wallaby (a straight one, of course), could see fit to die for THEIR sins.
